Giving Away Albums For Free

[Black Sabbath]

So, with all of the "free" albums lately and various opinions, I figured it'd be interesting to open up a topic and have us discuss what people think about this process that more and more artists seem to be doing.

Obviously, the biggest one as of late is U2's giveaway, directly into people's iTunes library. Millions of users got U2's newest album, Songs of Innocence for free and all they had to do was click on the album to actually download it, as it was already sitting in their libraries. Biggest catch is that you can't delete it from your library (though I do think Apple came out with an app that you can remove it now). While a lot of people are pissed off at U2 for that, who's to say it was their decision to not give people the choice to remove it? Sure, they agreed to the deal, but we don't know the 100% logistics of it. Whatever, that's not what I'm getting into really. Main point being the process of how they gave it away.

U2 reportedly received $100-million dollars from Apple for them to be the exclusive, free distributor until October 13th (when the album will then release in a physical and digital format for purchase). So, free for iTunes users, but not for Apple. Whether or not you agree with how it was distributed in the sense of it being directly added to your library, it's a great marketing move. U2 already got paid by Apple, they're bound to gain new fans who figure "Why not?" when looking at the album already in their library, and as a result, put a number of their past albums into the "Top" listings on iTunes from people purchasing them.

Some might argue that "It shouldn't be about marketing, it should be about the music". While I tend to agree, regardless of what anyone thinks or says, it is a business. Whether it's multiple versions of the same album, merchandise, touring - whatever; Bands/artists still are in it to make money. It's what they do for a living.

Then, you've got one like today, where Thom Yorke released a new solo album through Bittorrent. Another free album, but released differently. In this case, people have the option actually looking into the album. They had an option with U2 as well, albeit a little more forward, but still an option. Now with this release, most likely the vast majority of people downloading this album, are already fans of Yorke. A small percentage may be new listeners, but it's not as likely as new listeners checking out the U2 album which is already there in front of them.

Now, I don't want to turn this thread into a "bash or defend" U2 wagon or whatever. That's not what this is about. U2 was just used as an example for the thread, as was Yorke since both are the most recent releases I could think of. My idea behind this thread is mainly, what are you thoughts on artists releasing new music for free? Should they do it? If so, how - get money from a company as a backing/endorsement, free with the artist taking the hit, something different? Or should artists just refrain from this kind of release and just do it traditionally like most bands release albums normally?

Discuss.

[Towelie]

Like with most things, Prince was doing it ten years before everyone else.

[RussTCB]

Like with most things, Prince was doing it ten years before everyone else.

I mentioned Musicology on the podcast when this came up!

[username]

I think U2 went beyond giving it away for free and resorted to shoving it down people's throats.

Other than that, as I mentioned in the other thread, I can see them becoming a trend in music. We've already seen a strong financial shift from album-driven to tour-driven. Artists also become less dependent on large recordlabels. So the middle man (who earns more from albums than the actual artist) is fading.

That being said, sales records are still being broken today. So obviously the ceiling of paying for music hasn't been reached. But how much of that actually goes to the artist? With all the new media popping up, isn't it more lucrative for an artist to just record it and distribute it over media like spotify, itunes and other services than to still print albums? I would hate that personally by the way, because I really love having a physical copy in my hands. But I can see it happening. And when that happens the step to giving it away for free becomes even smaller. Particularly for acts still trying to establish a name for themselves.

So yeah, seems like a very real option to me.

[Dan H.]

I don't believe Thom's new album is free. It's just being released very cheaply through an alternative platform.

Honestly I think Radioheads release of In Rainbows was a brilliant move. They released it as a 'pay what you want', where hardcore fans could pay 5-10 dollars for the album, but people who were interested but not really Radiohead fans could download it for a penny, and maybe become Radiohead fans.

It eliminates the risk of the consumer buying an album by a band they aren't familiar with, and then regretting it only to have wasted 12-15 dollars

[username]

Honestly I think Radioheads release of In Rainbows was a brilliant move. They released it as a 'pay what you want', where hardcore fans could pay 5-10 dollars for the album, but people who were interested but not really Radiohead fans could download it for a penny, and maybe become Radiohead fans.

It eliminates the risk of the consumer buying an album by a band they aren't familiar with, and then regretting it only to have wasted 12-15 dollars

Absolutely. It's a great way to expose yourself, both for new bands and for older bands wishing to expose themselves to new audiences. I'm not a Radiohead fan, but I'd gladly pay 10 to 20 euro's for a new release of a band I like anyway.

[Black Sabbath]

My mistake, I thought the album was free since it was through torrents. Should have looked into it further.

Same concept applies though. Trent Reznor released The Slip for free on the NIN website in '08 as a digital download, then an eventual physical release.

As for U2, I don't think they forced it upon anyone. Sure, it was automatically inserted into your iTunes library, but you had to click on it to actually download the songs. I guess I'm biased since I'm a fan, but I think the uproar people caused about it was a little dramatic Honestly don't think it would have been as big of a deal if different bands did it and a lot of it came from U2/Bono-dislike. That's just me as far as that goes. I do think Apple should have given people the option to be able to delete it if they truly didn't want it, though.

But again, it was a great move, in my opinion. I'd love to know how many new fans they actually gained due to releasing it that way and someone going "Huh, why not?" and checking it out, evolving into them looking into the other albums.

[Bono]

Honestly I think Radioheads release of In Rainbows was a brilliant move. They released it as a 'pay what you want', where hardcore fans could pay 5-10 dollars for the album, but people who were interested but not really Radiohead fans could download it for a penny, and maybe become Radiohead fans.

It eliminates the risk of the consumer buying an album by a band they aren't familiar with, and then regretting it only to have wasted 12-15 dollars

Absolutely. It's a great way to expose yourself, both for new bands and for older bands wishing to expose themselves to new audiences. I'm not a Radiohead fan, but I'd gladly pay 10 to 20 euro's for a new release of a band I like anyway.

I don't understand this. Praise for Radiohead for finding a great way to expose themselves yet U2 finds the absolute best way to expose themselves and are absolutely trashed for it. This is just my opinion but I'd be willing to bet the entire fucking farm on the idea that had Radiohead, Beyonce, NIN, Eminem or whoever released their album the way U2 did it would have received universal praise. The backlash would be next to none. Why? Because when you are not the biggest band in the world you don't receive backlash for doing something new and somewhat innovative. Had GnR released Chinese Democracy the same way U2 released Songs of Innocence every single person on this board would have loved it, would have thought it genius and would have called it ground breaking and would have praised Axl Rose for thinking outside the box and being creative. After all a major complaint by people on these boards is simply not enough people gave CD a chance or even heard it. U2 comes up with a way to make sure everyone has a chance to hear their album and people get pissed off, calling it a lame gimmick that forced music onto people, invading their civil rights, freedoms and privacy. Like WTF?

The fact is the way U2 released their album was marketing genius. The massive backlash only fueled the promotion and created more buzz. And what's funny, after the noise of the haters died down, the people who appreciated getting the album were starting to be heard more. More and more you started hearing about how the album is actually pretty good. Nearly 50 million people have chose to download their new album. That's fantastic! Many more have heard it or parts of it in their icloud. The media likes to focus on the hate U2 has received but rarely mentions the fact that after the release of Songs of Innocence, 26 of U2's album releases entered the top 200 on the itunes album charts. At one point they had 21 albums in the top 100. That's unheard of and shows that despite the way the album was released, this was at the heart of it all, about the music. Because if the album sucked the punch line joke that "U2's music sucks so bad they have to give it away for free" would've carried a lot of weight. The album doesn't suck though so it's just a stupid meme. The album has received mostly very positive reviews and if it absolutely sucked the way some people say it does, it would not have inspired people to go back and buy U2's back catelogue.

I think the U2 situation proves that giving away a free album can not only benefit the music listeners but also the band themselves. And I'll stand by my comments till the day I die that had it not been the "Biggest Band on the Planet" who did this the backlash would be almost nothing. Definitely not to the catastrophic levels that it was. What I find funny was the people who bitched about it as though the world was ending did more to promote it than the actual promotion itself haha.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Bono

[Dan H.]

Well, I think the whole process with the album release could have been handled more humbly. I don't know who made the decision to put the album in everyone's iTunes library automatically(I suspect Apple) but I think that was a poor decision. And I'm a huge U2 fan.

With Thom and Radiohead they offered the album for free, and promoted it to gather interest, but you actually had to go to the In Rainbows website and download it there.

I think saying the release was 'shoved down throats' is a bit overstating it though.

And for a little context between the two on critical reception, Songs of Innocence is sitting at a 64 critic reviews on Metacritic(7.4 user reviews) while In Rainbows is at an 88 critic reviews on Metacritic(9.2 user review)

So I wouldn't call U2s critical reception for the album 'mostly positive' or 'mostly negative'.

Edited September 27, 2014 by LiveFromNormal

[gunsfanoldie]

I don't personally like when albums are given away for free. Keith Nelson, guitarist from Buckcherry, has said that he hates it because these bands put their time and money into recording and should be compensated for it. Its a labor of love, but it still deserves to be paid for. They are giving you something you can play over and over again. There should be a monetary value to albums, because why even make them if they are just given away for free.

Having said that, I'm a total hypocrite because I download all my music. I just recently bought the new Slash album, but I literally can not think of the last time I bought a CD. My defense has always been I see these people live, so they get my money in some way and its probably more than they get from a CD. But an album deserves to be paid for, even if I break that rule. I do support the bands in other ways, but I fully admit I'm wrong for not doing buying the albums. They should be paid for and U2 making it free is a massive blow IMO. I think its going way downhill after that move.

[Dan H.]

I don't personally like when albums are given away for free. Keith Nelson, guitarist from Buckcherry, has said that he hates it because these bands put their time and money into recording and should be compensated for it. Its a labor of love, but it still deserves to be paid for. They are giving you something you can play over and over again. There should be a monetary value to albums, because why even make them if they are just given away for free.

Having said that, I'm a total hypocrite because I download all my music. I just recently bought the new Slash album, but I literally can not think of the last time I bought a CD. My defense has always been I see these people live, so they get my money in some way and its probably more than they get from a CD. But an album deserves to be paid for, even if I break that rule. I do support the bands in other ways, but I fully admit I'm wrong for not doing buying the albums. They should be paid for and U2 making it free is a massive blow IMO. I think its going way downhill after that move.

Well, the albums still get paid for. U2 made 100 million off of my their album.

Band don't make a whole lot off of album sales anyways, they make most of their money through merchandise, touring, royalties, promos, etc etc.

From a business standpoint the album just drums up the hype and gets people interested in spending more money on the band.

I don't know if I'd trust the opinion of 'the guy from Buck Cherry' on this one. Established bands are doing fine, record labels will be the ones who suffer as a result of the popularization of free or pay what you want style releases.

Smaller bands will still need labels to cling to for advanced and professionals in the industry to help them (producers, engineers, techs).

Edited September 27, 2014 by LiveFromNormal

[wasted]

But every album sold generates about 10 dollars for the record company?

Partly what it does is make less likely for a new band to explode. Because sales are so low all bands stay under control. No band like GNR can sell 20 mil and be a big deal.

Then the free deals through iTunes stuff leads to them controlling what music we hear. Less music will be put out and all through iTunes or aol or whatever.

In the end that's what might happen when you pay for your Internet it gives you unlimited access to music, movies, games. There will be more money for artists who can get a deal but it will be tight. Unless they fit the mainstream culture they won't get signed. It's not like they won't exist but it will like the divide between rich and poor growing.

Edited September 27, 2014 by wasted

[Anguyen92]

I don't personally like when albums are given away for free. Keith Nelson, guitarist from Buckcherry, has said that he hates it because these bands put their time and money into recording and should be compensated for it. Its a labor of love, but it still deserves to be paid for. They are giving you something you can play over and over again. There should be a monetary value to albums, because why even make them if they are just given away for free.

Having said that, I'm a total hypocrite because I download all my music. I just recently bought the new Slash album, but I literally can not think of the last time I bought a CD. My defense has always been I see these people live, so they get my money in some way and its probably more than they get from a CD. But an album deserves to be paid for, even if I break that rule. I do support the bands in other ways, but I fully admit I'm wrong for not doing buying the albums. They should be paid for and U2 making it free is a massive blow IMO. I think its going way downhill after that move.

I always go with the belief that if an album is really really good and enjoyable to a person, then that person is willing to pay good money for it as long as they feel that it's great value for the price. I, too, bought the Slash album and I just pre-ordered the new Dream Theater DVD after just seeing a preview of that performance and that there's no way that I'm going to regret those choices.

As for the "what does this U2 move do for the future?", making high-quality albums, with all the gear and stuff, isn't really cheap and if an act makes an album and they put all their effort onto it, they should be compensated for it like you stated and at least break even from it.

That said, with U2 getting paid $100 million from Apple. I don't even think that the album they made cost even 1% of it so their ROI of it is really huge.

[wasted]

I don't think they got 100 mil? They got 100 mil for promo. Which I suppose they could spend on matching Ferraris.

I think it's a bad thing, it's consumer communism. One size fits all. It favouritism too. Giving U2 100 mil to promo it to generate advertising dollars is cynical. Why not give the money to some new band? Because its too risky so they fix it. It's kind of fun just big bands to do it, what means for less known bands is less chance to break into the big time. The roulette table is rigged.

They could have invested that 100 mil in new bands but they chose to invest in the stock of U2.

[username]

Honestly I think Radioheads release of In Rainbows was a brilliant move. They released it as a 'pay what you want', where hardcore fans could pay 5-10 dollars for the album, but people who were interested but not really Radiohead fans could download it for a penny, and maybe become Radiohead fans.

It eliminates the risk of the consumer buying an album by a band they aren't familiar with, and then regretting it only to have wasted 12-15 dollars

Absolutely. It's a great way to expose yourself, both for new bands and for older bands wishing to expose themselves to new audiences. I'm not a Radiohead fan, but I'd gladly pay 10 to 20 euro's for a new release of a band I like anyway.

I don't understand this. Praise for Radiohead for finding a great way to expose themselves yet U2 finds the absolute best way to expose themselves and are absolutely trashed for it. This is just my opinion but I'd be willing to bet the entire fucking farm on the idea that had Radiohead, Beyonce, NIN, Eminem or whoever released their album the way U2 did it would have received universal praise. The backlash would be next to none. Why? Because when you are not the biggest band in the world you don't receive backlash for doing something new and somewhat innovative. Had GnR released Chinese Democracy the same way U2 released Songs of Innocence every single person on this board would have loved it, would have thought it genius and would have called it ground breaking and would have praised Axl Rose for thinking outside the box and being creative. After all a major complaint by people on these boards is simply not enough people gave CD a chance or even heard it. U2 comes up with a way to make sure everyone has a chance to hear their album and people get pissed off, calling it a lame gimmick that forced music onto people, invading their civil rights, freedoms and privacy. Like WTF?

The fact is the way U2 released their album was marketing genius. The massive backlash only fueled the promotion and created more buzz. And what's funny, after the noise of the haters died down, the people who appreciated getting the album were starting to be heard more. More and more you started hearing about how the album is actually pretty good. Nearly 50 million people have chose to download their new album. That's fantastic! Many more have heard it or parts of it in their icloud. The media likes to focus on the hate U2 has received but rarely mentions the fact that after the release of Songs of Innocence, 26 of U2's album releases entered the top 200 on the itunes album charts. At one point they had 21 albums in the top 100. That's unheard of and shows that despite the way the album was released, this was at the heart of it all, about the music. Because if the album sucked the punch line joke that "U2's music sucks so bad they have to give it away for free" would've carried a lot of weight. The album doesn't suck though so it's just a stupid meme. The album has received mostly very positive reviews and if it absolutely sucked the way some people say it does, it would not have inspired people to go back and buy U2's back catelogue.

I think the U2 situation proves that giving away a free album can not only benefit the music listeners but also the band themselves. And I'll stand by my comments till the day I die that had it not been the "Biggest Band on the Planet" who did this the backlash would be almost nothing. Definitely not to the catastrophic levels that it was. What I find funny was the people who bitched about it as though the world was ending did more to promote it than the actual promotion itself haha.

Chill out with the outrage!

From what I heard people got it pushed to their device without asking for it. That, in my opinion, is taking it a step too far. Also, I'm a much bigger U2 fan than I am a Radiohead fan (in fact I don't like them at all). It wouldn't make any difference to me who did what. Like I said - not even a Radiohead fan. I get that you're pissed about all the hate U2 gets, but you're aiming it at the wrong person.

[MEXzilla]

To be honest U2 got trashed because people hate Bono and also their old. If GnR released CD this way people would've hated it, why? Cause they are old and Axl is hated. While other bands such as Radiohead are still considered "geniuses" by music journalist. Beyonce, Eminem, etc. are still relevant. It's that simple.

As far as the way of releasing an album, well I think it's good. I tend to just download torrents so it's all the same to me but if they gave me free music like U2 then hey no need to go to torrent sites.

Edited September 27, 2014 by MEXzilla

[Bono]

Well, I think the whole process with the album release could have been handled more humbly. I don't know who made the decision to put the album in everyone's iTunes library automatically(I suspect Apple) but I think that was a poor decision. And I'm a huge U2 fan.

With Thom and Radiohead they offered the album for free, and promoted it to gather interest, but you actually had to go to the In Rainbows website and download it there.

I think saying the release was 'shoved down throats' is a bit overstating it though.

And for a little context between the two on critical reception, Songs of Innocence is sitting at a 64 critic reviews on Metacritic(7.4 user reviews) while In Rainbows is at an 88 critic reviews on Metacritic(9.2 user review)

So I wouldn't call U2s critical reception for the album 'mostly positive' or 'mostly negative'.

Yes I would say the album has received mostly positive reviews. It has a 64 based on 28 critic reviews. 64 is a positive score even if not a glowing one. Based on 177 user reviews though it gets a 7.5. That's positive and given the fact this album was given to EVEYONE with an itunes account it's safe to say not only U2 fans are reviewing it. In Rainbows was listened to by only Radiohead fans so their incredibly high score is to be expected because in all honest In Rainbows isn't that amazing. Read some of the negative reviews by the critics about the U2 album and it's very clear their negative review was written even before Songs of Innocence was know to exist. One guy even called it "an unwanted soulless shiny piece of plastic". Either this guy didn't even listen to it or he was privy to an actually hard copy of the CD that nobody else has. Go to any U2 site and the fans for the most part love it. And reviews for this album are going to be harsher because of the way it was released. You're going to get people who despise them reviewing their album. People who hate or didn't know who Radiohead was didn't even listen to In Rainbows let alone review it.

[Bono]

I don't think they got 100 mil? They got 100 mil for promo. Which I suppose they could spend on matching Ferraris.

I think it's a bad thing, it's consumer communism. One size fits all. It favouritism too. Giving U2 100 mil to promo it to generate advertising dollars is cynical. Why not give the money to some new band? Because its too risky so they fix it. It's kind of fun just big bands to do it, what means for less known bands is less chance to break into the big time. The roulette table is rigged.

They could have invested that 100 mil in new bands but they chose to invest in the stock of U2.

The music industry doesn't work the way you are suggesting. I hope you're not one of the people who said there is nothing wrong with the music industry in the other thread I started about what's wrong with the industry because THIS what you are talking about right here, is what's wrong with the industry. There is no willingness on the part of labels, companies, advertisers or what have you to invest in new, talented bands. Does U2 get favoured? Of course they fucking do. They're U2. They are the biggest band on the planet. Companies probably line up to be associated with them. It's not a risk. I agree it would be awesome if a company invested 100 million into an unknown band and promoted them but that's never going to happen. And this deal U2 made has no impact on lesser know bands. NONE. It has nothing to do with them and with the way the industry is it never will. But just because U2 got paid and their album was given out for free doesn't mean some poor indie band just folded because they can't get noticed. They can't get noticed because the industry doesn't give a flying fuck about them. So whether it was you or not in the other thread(I can't be bothered to go look), YES there is something majorly wrong with the industry. Having said that I'm sure glad U2 got this money for promo rather than Drake or Gaga or someone.

[Bono]

To be honest U2 got trashed because people hate Bono and also their old. If GnR released CD this way people would've hated it, why? Cause they are old and Axl is hated. While other bands such as Radiohead are still considered "geniuses" by music journalist. Beyonce, Eminem, etc. are still relevant. It's that simple.

As far as the way of releasing an album, well I think it's good. I tend to just download torrents so it's all the same to me but if they gave me free music like U2 then hey no need to go to torrent sites.

The only people who think Radiohead are still geniuses are pretentious hipsters and music "journalists" who feel they need to name drop Radiohead as a badge of music knowledge credibility. I used to be a huge Radiohead fan until they shoved their own heads right up their own asses. I can't stand heir pretentious attitude towards mainstream music and their forced attempt to intentionally not write songs that have mass appeal. They could do it in their sleep yet they insist on making mundane "experimental" music. It's not genius it's stubbornness.

But you are right about one thing. People hate Bono(most of them don't even know why they hate him, they just say it because it sounds cool) and U2 aren't "relevant" in terms of what the kids like yet every album they have released since 1987 has gone #1(This one might not considering it's been given away for free already) and they still are the biggest touring draw in music. So in one sense they aren't relevant but on the other hand they are the most relevant. And given who's been in the news the last 2 weeks U2 is actually the most relevant band on the planet at the moment. People are still talking about this album and it hasn't even been offcially released yet. Will be interesting to see what the next album Songs of Experience is like and what their tour is like. U2 is gonna be in the headlines for the next year.

[Dan H.]

Jesus Christ.

[wasted]

I think if iTunes gave unsigned bands a 10 mil each and hosted their albums on iTunes people might think of it as a good thing. It's just a bit of corporate gang bang really.

But yeah a big band is equally loved and hated. I'm sure if Bieber or Axls new album got automatically loaded in people's library some people be pissed too.

[username]

Maybe there should be a separate U2 thread for this...

[wasted]

U2 could be relevant to the destruction of music. It's kind of cool for them because they already made it. But for new bands who don't get iTunes deals there's just not really a way to really be successful. I'm not sure if that is true but it's a possible scenario. There's so many hipster bands because they don't need a video budget they just post pencil drawing sketches of a video they would make on Facebook. Do hipsters use Facebook?

[Rovim]

U2 could be relevant to the destruction of music. It's kind of cool for them because they already made it. But for new bands who don't get iTunes deals there's just not really a way to really be successful. I'm not sure if that is true but it's a possible scenario. There's so many hipster bands because they don't need a video budget they just post pencil drawing sketches of a video they would make on Facebook. Do hipsters use Facebook?

Facebook uses hipsters. Bread and butter. And self centered bitches and big brother.

[Gordon Comstock]

I like free albums. I usually download albums before I buy them anyway so if the band gives it away in every format I want, all the better.

Also, download Foxy Shazam's newest album here. It's free and awesome. Do it.