Comments on: Trent Reznor On “Niggy Tardust” Sales: Thanks For Being Jerks, Internet

By: Nathan

Nathan — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 04:31:17 +0000

Whether they made money or not, they made one of the most provocative albums I’ve every heard. If that’s not rewarding as an artist, then why be an artist. An album this smart and this creative, was never meant to be mainstream. The mainstream couldn’t handle it.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:27:22 +0000

I believe that it goes like this - all the people who really don't care about sound quality and just want to put it on to their IPOD will probably get it for free instead of paying a small fee. The audiophiles on the other hand, who really care about the sound quality, they would probably pay some money instead of getting it for free.

You see, audiophiles - people who really care about music, also care about the artist in a way. While the others who listen to crappy mp3 quality would pretty much care less.

Quality music is important to me, very very worth $5 maybe even $50.

I paid the $5, it is the least I could do because music has enhanced my life so much that I dare not do wrong to an artist who has influenced me to feel extraordinary things.

And I was also disappointed in the people who didn't pay 5 bucks.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 03:10:10 +0000

Trent & Saul fucked this whole thing up, IMHO.

First of all, people have to hear something and decide they like it before they buy it, right?

The options were A): Pay 5 bucks and download the record or B): Pay nothing and download the record.

How about adding a simple C): Here, check this record out and if you dig it, either A) download it for nothing or B) Do the right thing and cough up five bones to support the artist.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 03:09:52 +0000

(I previously posted something similar, but my browser was acting up. If this is a double post, apologies)

I think Reznor blew it by anticipating that the general public (even that which is on the first wave of blog-hype) will unconditionally care about bitrate. For every audiophile out there, there's at least ten people that simply want something sounding decent that fits on their Ipod. Radiohead enabled people to get the high bitrate as part of the discbox set, but those people were all fetishists to begin with. 160kbps is fine for what most people use their music for, and having something three times the size taking up valuable Ipod space isn't always desirable. While I don't know for sure whether the overall financial haul would've been bigger with a straight up Radiohead model, I do think that more than a few die-hard fans simply didn't give a shit that one file had different compression, and without an e-tip jar to toss Saul a couple bucks, simply took the freebie and left.

By: G3K

G3K — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 01:58:06 +0000

I paid the $5 sight unseen (sound unheard?) and enjoyed the record. And I hate slam poetry so this is an achievement.

By: TimmyGUNZ

TimmyGUNZ — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:59:43 +0000

I don't feel bad one bit. I downloaded the album, heard about 3 songs and thought it was utter shit and deleted it from my iTunes. I'm sure many people felt the same way. (Not my cup of tea)

It'd be one thing if the record was showing up on iLike and Last.FM as being one of the most played records, but it's not, so therefore, any money earned should be looked at as an accomplishment.

By: sparkletone

sparkletone — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 05:16:17 +0000

I'm not seeing why he's disappointed here. The sales have been in line with Saul's last album, and there were 150k people curious enough to give it a shot. Maybe some of those people will come out to shows, blah, blah, blah.

I'd say the experiment was a with-qualifiers success.

By: Jess Harvell

Jess Harvell — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 04:17:24 +0000

yeah i was going to make a note after al’s first comment that reznor does end his blog entry with on a “chin up” note; as for the 33k number, good question. based on that “tone of disappointment” i took it to mean initial sales, but it very well could be all sales since 2004.

By: Rabi

Rabi — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 04:03:39 +0000

Hey Jess,

This post seems a bit misleading. Trent does end his post with a positive note, that Saul's music is in more iPods than ever.

Also, looking at the 33k number: was that all sales since 2004? If so, Niggy Tardust is an exponential leap ahead of the last album.

By: Dickdogfood

Dickdogfood — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 03:57:10 +0000

I'm not sure anybody take his tone of disappointment completely at face value. Even if he thought the outcome was predictable, he's sort of obligated to at least appear pissed-off--to do otherwise would be an implicit sanction of freeloadering.

By: Al Shipley

Al Shipley — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 03:50:33 +0000

He really shouldn’t have had any expections, and shouldn’t feel any disappointment. It was an experiment. Bottom line: it has already sold as much as SW’s last album (and will probably outsell it), and since there’s no label taking most of the profit the artist will easily make more off it, even with the lower pricetag. Plus several times more people have heard it than probably would have otherwise. It’s win-win the way I see it.