So the press release headline announces Saul Williams’ new album, The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of NiggyTardust!, from The FADER Label produced by NIN’s Trent Reznor is available for free. The subtitle offers an additional pay $5 option and those two are your only options though one might interpret these choices as following in the spirit of Radiohead’s choose-your-price approach for In Rainbows.
I go to NiggyTardust.com and suddenly I’m faced with a moral dilemma, I can pay $5 and according to the website that states that:
I want to directly support the artists involved in the creation of this music.
If I decide to download it for free that means:
I’m not concerned about that. I just want the music.
Problem. I don’t want to buy this album for $5 at the present time. It’s spoken word or something, right? I have difficulty listening to that kind of thing and there aren’t any samples so I’ll pass on that option.
But if I download it for free and take a listen, something I don’t do nearly as often as most artists and publicists wish, then I could say something nice about it or avoid the topic of liking it if I’m just feeling supportive.
But the artist and his people would interpret that as lack of support.
You know what? I’m being really silly. Why am I sitting here splitting hairs when most people in my position would just go ahead and download it?
Well, I’ve got some work to do. Maybe I’ll check out what Saul’s up to these days another time.
Note:
A lot of people decided to pay more than one might expect for Radiohead’s In Rainbows release as a clear show of support. But I don’t recall Radiohead asking for support. They offered their work with variable pricing and they got the support of the people who cared in the form in which those people wanted to give support.
Seriously, two options with a guilt tripping message? That’s what I’m seeing and it’s not a good look.
Clyde,
Thanks for pointing out the wrinkle in the Saul “variable” pricing. There’s a big difference between paying whatever you think it’s worth and only having 2 options. Andrew Weissman has a solid post articulating this point: http://www.aweissman.com/2007/10/radiohead-freedom-artistry.html
There is a big difference and a lot of psychology at play when folks start experimenting in this area.
It’s not spoken word. Sounds much like his last briliant album but with Mr Reznor at the helm. It’s worth more than $5 my friend…
“It’s not spoken word. Sounds much like his last briliant album but with Mr Reznor at the helm. It’s worth more than $5 my friend…”
Actually I really do want to check it out cause I respect both those cats.
But I was honestly offended at the implied accusation that a free download equals lack of support. I think there are much smarter ways to approach that issue.
Ultimately, anything that recreates an unnecessary and possibly untrue binary in a setting in which flexibility is called for will ultimately be a failure.
So setting up the support/pay money or don’t support/get it free binary is to set up a pricing option based on a lie, because some people, for example, are really broke but they’ll do hardcore word of mouth if your work moves them.
I think of both Saul Williams and Trent Reznor as deeply honest people. So this is a disjunctive split between pricing and artistic integrity rather than a strong statement that one should support artists one respects.
hi. my 2 cents here
I think that the offering of this a bit uncomfortable choice is deliberate and it manifests the exact integrity you were talking about.
Why. It’s obviouse that such options do not flatter the one who’s not willing to pay. Quite the opposite. But logic is simple. Honestly I can’t imagine a person who has access to good enough internet connection to download the album, has ipod and so on but cannot afford spending 5 bucks on music. It’s nothing, really. And pls don’t tell me about different situations or I’ll tell you the average income in the country where I live =) So in fact all the ‘good’ reasons for not paying are just self-delusion. And one is forced to be honest and acknowledge that he’s not paying just because he doesn’t want to.
And BTW there’s nothing wrong with not willing to pay. I’m still allowed to have music and enjoy it. If I know for sure that I’m going to support artists in a different way or come back and pay if I like music then that ‘I don’t care’ on the $0 button doesn’t apply to me and why should I be bothered with it?
So if I’m honest with myself I have no problems choosing either option. If I know I’m guilty but want things to look nice – then there’s a problem. Look, they don’t help me to feel cool whatever my choice is! How dare they.
Well, Trent’s never been a kind guy. But he’s straight and honest and I sincerely applaud him for not softening what he thinks on the subject even if he risks to lose money because of it.
And this album is great as hell, seriously. The most enjoyable release of the year. Just listen to it as loud as possible!
Come on! It’s clearly implied to download it free or otherwise. The $5 download has more quality behind it.
As for Radiohead. Wasn’t it a thing to download free then buy when the CD came out at a later date or something like that?