i’m a member of a particular file sharing community. i won’t mention which one, but suffice to say it’s rather tasty.

anyway, i’ve been thinking a lot about that community and the distribution method there. the site is all torrents (of course) as they offer the fastest distribution possible. they also allow the site administrators to basically avoid a lot of legal trouble by hosting nothing on the site but the torrent files. this is a very common setup in the “piracy” world. i hate to use that word to describe the community, because i think, especially related to music, these sites are the future and someday these “pirates” may be looked back on as innovators and forward thinkers.

so if you’ve never been a member of one of these file sharing communities before, the way they tend to work is thus: how much you download is tracked. as you download the amount of data you’ve downloaded is stored in your profile on the site. your download total is then matched up with the amount of data you’ve uploaded to give a “ratio.” this ratio is then used to track your status on the site, with penalties for people that do not keep their ratio high enough (essentially not sharing what you’ve downloaded).

this tracking accomplishes a couple of things. first, it helps to keep things available for other users longer. it’s in the user’s best interest to keep something “seeded” to allow other users to download it as well (as this helps their ratio by uploading data). second, it helps to keep file transfer speeds up, as again it is best for the users to keep things open on their end. the more people you can potentially download from, the faster your download will be. that’s really the essence behind torrent technology in the first place. lastly, tracking a user’s ratio is good for the community as a whole. it promotes sharing and helps to keep the community growing, in regards to the amount of music available and shared.

so how can this model be applied to a “legitimate” music distribution source? i think that most people that are a part of these communities (and these communities do contain artists and bands as well as your average music fan) realize that what they are doing is taking something from an artist and not providing the compensation they deserve. the majority of these people i think are fed up with the price of music, they way they are treated by record labels, and a general overabundance of music that just kind of sucks. there are plenty of great bands out there, but finding them is almost impossible by going to the record store or listening to the radio anymore (don’t even get me started on mtv or vh1). most of that music is so tightly controlled by record labels that it’s hard to find things new and interesting.

the system in place already on these sites is pretty well designed. these sites have been through a few iterations now, and the community and policies used are well developed. i don’t think the system needs to change in the way it works, but i think that it can be adapted to a pay model for music distribution, which in the long run would benefit both music listeners and artists (and even to an extent record labels). here’s what i would suggest.

• the base fee for a site could be $5 - $10 per month. i think it’s already been proven that people are willing to pay for monthly services as long as those services provide what they need and are updated frequently. take a look at the popularity of MMOs or netflix and you’ll see that people are willing to pay monthly for entertainment.

• keep the ratios, and make them hold an incentive. what i think would work well in this regard would be a fee adjustment for uploading and keeping a “good ratio.” for example, as long as your ratio for a particular month is say, 1.00+, then you save a certain amount of money off the next month’s fee. if your ratio is in the range from 0.75-1.00, then you save still, but not as much as if you had a higher ratio. the same would go for uploading a quality rip or fulfilling a user request. you could save a certain amount of money for any requests filled, or new uploads that you provide.

• the record labels have to give up some control. that’s the biggest hurdle to any of the new age p2p type sharing communities or systems. the record labels would need to provide the servers to host the site, but they should not provide the content (yet…). they need to let users upload from their own collections. this is especially true in the formative stages of this kind of service. as cds and other physical media become less and less available, and all music is initially released digitally, the need for users to share their own collections will become less necessary. but until that time, record labels have to give up their physical control of the product and rather let their control come from the distribution.

• artists need to have a stake in it too. the sites themselves could be owned by record labels, but they should allow artists to receive compensation when their music is added. because the site tracks users, torrents, and all kinds of other data, it would be easy to track the amount of downloads an artist receives. this should allow for a good profit sharing amongst the parties involved. in fact, i would argue that the labels themselves should only make profit from ads. all download dividends should be given directly to the artist.

• file formats and quality should still be enforced. i think the best aspect of these communities now is their “snobbish” approach to digital music quality. i think this absolutely needs to stay the same. i think it is in the best interest of everyone involved to have the highest quality product available, as well as to only reward those users that conform to those quality standards. the policing should continue to be done by community members with assistance from some paid employees.

by moving these sites from the underground to the mainstream you gain acceptance from the public at large. you also open the community up for a much broader range of music and opinions. while many people might feel special because they are a member of these communities, i think that attitude might be the most damaging to something like this in the long run. as it is now, music is controlled by large corporations that really have no desire to promote or manage an artist properly. they only care about the bottom line. i think a system such as i’ve outlined above still allows them to maintain their bottom line (granted not to the tune of millions of dollars, but really who expects that to keep up?) as well as provide a method for distribution of any and all artists.

could you imagine if you could hook up to an online music repository that contained literally hundreds of thousands of releases via your xbox 360 or other home media center? that’s the potential for something like this, if only the recording industry would get off their asses and do something about it. because, i guarantee if they don’t, someone else will (and already have, but to the loss of the music industry).

trent reznor (aka nine inch nails) released a new album this past sunday night. what’s so special about that you might ask? the fact that he is giving it out in multiple formats, with multiple ways you can receive it.

from somewhere:

Nine Inch Nails has self-released a new instrumental album, Ghosts I-IV. Consisting of 36 instrumental tracks described as “music for daydreams” and released under Creative Commons, it is available in a wide range of formats: MP3, double CD, a package with: the 2xCD, multitracks on DVD, and a deluxe book, and finally the super-deluxe limited edition which includes all that as well as a copy of the album on vinyl.

The free MP3 download includes the first volume - nine tracks (each with unique artwork), wallpapers, and a PDF of the 40 page book. Available directly off nin.com, you also have the option to torrent it via official NIN profiles on Waffles, what.cd and The Pirate Bay. Absent from this release was any kind of leak of audio or information. Record labels and artists should take notes: This is how you do music distribution.

notice the bolded, underlined, italicized line above. this is what sets this release apart from any other of the recent digital distributions done (saul williams and radiohead for example). giving out the free version via “illegal” downloading sites is a new idea for a major artist. trent reznor has been quoted as having been a member of oink and some other music download sites.

the fact that he’s willing to put his money where his mouth is is pretty amazing. i’m happy to see an artist use this method of distribution. for those of you that don’t know, there are of course purchasable versions as well (which do have more tracks, 36 in total as opposed to the 9 avail for free).

a rundown of what’s available:

FREE DOWNLOAD
Ghosts I - The first 9 tracks from the Ghosts I-IV collection available as
high-quality DRM-free MP3s (320kbps LAME encoded, fully tagged) including complete 40 page PDF. Also includes the digital extras pack - various
wallpapers, icons, and graphics tools for your computer, website, profile, etc.

$5 DOWNLOAD
Ghosts I-IV - All 36 tracks in a variety of DRM-free digital formats (320
kbps LAME encoded, fully tagged; FLAC Lossless; Apple Lossless) including a 40
page PDF. Also includes the digital extras pack - various wallpapers, icons,
and graphics tools for your computer, website, profile, etc.

This version is also available from the Amazon MP3 store.

$10 2XCD SET
Ghosts I-IV - 2 audio CDs in a gatefold digipak package with a 16-page
booklet. To be shipped TBD. Includes immediate DRM-free download of the
entire collection in same choice of formats as $5 Download option. Download
will include the 40 page PDF and the digital extras pack - various wallpapers,
cons, and graphics tools for your computer, website, profile, etc.
This configuration will be released to retail in North America (April 8), Australia (April 5), the UK (April 8), Japan (April 5) and most European territories (April 8).

$75 LIMITED EDITION DELUXE PACKAGE
Ghosts I-IV - Hardcover book holding 2 audio CDs, 1 data DVD of all 36
tracks in multi-track format (in .wav files readable by Mac and Windows), and
Blu-ray disc featuring stereo recordings in high-definition 24 bit 96Khz with
exclusive slide show. Includes immediate DRM-free download of the entire
collection in all formats and with all extras mentioned above. Also includes
48-page hardcover of photographs by Phillip Graybill and Rob Sheridan.
Discs and art book both housed in fabric slipcover.

$300 ULTRA-DELUXE LIMITED EDITION PACKAGE
Ghosts I-IV - Contains all elements from deluxe package, along with
exclusive 4XLP 180-gram vinyl set, and two limited edition Giclee prints
available exclusively in this package. Disc book, art book, and prints are
all housed in a fabric slipcover. 4XLP vinyl set comes in its own fabric
slipcover. INCLUDES immediate DRM-free download of the entire collection in
all formats and with all extras mentioned above. LIMITED TO 2500 PIECES,
NUMBERED AND PERSONALLY SIGNED BY TRENT REZNOR.

what is so great about this is the fact that he’s providing a number of different options to consumers, which should help to maximize his own profits while allowing the fans to choose something that fits their budget. $5 for a full album download (including album art in each file) is more than reasonable in my opinion. $10 for a 2x cd isn’t bad either (and is the option i chose). beyond that, he’s released all the media under the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license. this license gives the user complete control over the songs. they can “copy, distribute, display, and perform the work” as well as “make derivative works” (ie remixes) as long as they list the source (NIN, trent reznor) and they aren’t charging anything for it.

to me this is how music should be distributed and used. i hope that this idea catches on for more than just those artists, like NIN, that already have a solid fanbase to work from. i don’t see any reason it can’t

so it’s that time of year again where all kind of know-it-alls try to tell you what albums you should’ve listened to over the past 365 days. i’m not going to do that, but i’ll definately share with you my top 10, take it or leave it.

1.
every time i die - the big dirty

2.
poison the well - versions

3.
dillinger escape plan - ire works

4.
will haven - the hierophant

5.
el-p - i’ll sleep when you’re dead

6.
porcupine tree - fear of a black planet

7.
jesu - conqueror

8.
pelican - city of echoes

9.
ken andrews - secrets of the lost satellites

10.
radiohead - in rainbows

honorable mentions:
tomahawk - anonymous
high on fire - death is this communion
wu-tang clan - 8 diagrams
akron/family - love is simple
the ocean - precambrian
silverchair - young modern
battles - mirrored
neurosis - given to the rising

yeah i know, a lot of metal.

she signed with live nation (traditionally a concert promoter) as an artist. what an interesting concept. could it be the first move in a series of events that will lead to the final downfall of the record industry as we know it?

i see it as being a really ballsy, yet smart, move on her part. she’s out from under the traditional thinking by record labels that you cannot give away the music for free and make money. it has her tying all of her revenue to one company (as opposed to the old model where the promoter takes a cut, the label takes a cut, and the artist takes a cut). she can probably distribute the music for free or relatively free online then recoup her recording costs in merchandising and ticket sales. no longer will there be a tug of war between the promoter and her label (as they’ve become one in the same).

i think this model probably has a better chance of surviving and/or bringing more artists to the limelight than the DIY model that some bands are taking now. i’d be interested to see how this kind of idea will work out with some lesser known names. if live nation can use madonna money to develop and promote some smaller or lesser known bands, i think it could really hellp to turn the music industry tide from a stream of sound-a-like brainless pop music to something where interesting, innovative, or otherwise more “niche” type sounds can make it a bit more mainstream.

we’ll see though. maybe i’m being overly optimistic here.

so i like metal music. i like lots of music, actually. i’ll listen to just about anything. i read in someone else’s blog once that they don’t like it when people say they “listen to everything.” i find that a rather narrow minded view. i’d rather be exposed to anything and everything i can get my hands on.

i’ve been unable to stop listening to the following bands for the past year: last.fm

what am i getting at here? well, i need more music. i love music. it is one thing that i have a great passion for in my life (and i’m a fairly passionless person, honestly). so, if you ever read this, recommend something to me. send me a band name, record label, genre, whatever so that i can find something else to listen to.

on the subject of music, yearly top 10 lists are fucking gay. whoever can quantify music so minutely that they can pick out 10 albums and rank them in order of how much they liked them seems to be missing out on something. now don’t get me wrong, you will definately have variance of “goodness” to anything you hear, and you can probably rank them from “this fucking sucks” to “omg i just blew a load b/c this rules” but really, 10 in order? please. just listen and enjoy.

ps. don’t be a snob about it either.