3 ms·
> I very much doubt a band would be able to get away with that. This seems to be the rule in most cases. However, some exceptions include: 1. Radiohead - "
by prg318 15y ago
> I very much doubt a band would be able to get away with that.
This seems to be the rule in most cases. However, some exceptions include:
1. Radiohead - "In Rainbows" -- Was recorded independently by Radiohead and released under a "Pay what you want" basis along with a hard copy that included a vinyl hardcopy and CD.
2. Nine Inch Nails - Year Zero (2007)-- This album was released by Reznor as a free digital download and Reznor also released the master tracks and encouraged remixes of the work.
3. Nine Inch Nails - Ghosts 1-5 / The Slip -- Reznor released these under the "Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike" license.
These acts obviously did not get popular from releasing their music for free, but set an important precedent for releasing artistic content DRM-free.
- darkane 15y agoThose are more anomalies than exceptions, as neither group was beholden to a recording contract at the time of those releases.
- commandar 15y ago>2. Nine Inch Nails - Year Zero (2007)-- This album was released by Reznor as a free digital download and Reznor also released the master tracks and encouraged remixes of the work. YZ was actually the last album in Reznor's contractual obligation to Interscope. He leaked a number of tracks as part of the accompanying ARG, but the album itself wasn't free. I seem to remember him having to jump through a number of hoops to get the masters released, as well. Also: keep in mind that Saul Williams had attempted a pay-what-you-want model with the Reznor-produced The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of NiggyTardust! prior to any of the other releases you mentioned.