very different and it gives me great pleasure to be able to finally have a direct relationship with the audience as I see fit and appropriate.’
For Ghosts I–IV, Reznor decided that the appropriate distribution channel would be the official Nine Inch Nails website ‘nin.com’. He also chose to release the songs under a licence that allowed fans to remix and redistribute the work in a multitude of different formats. On 13 March, Reznor launched the second phase of the project. First, multitrack versions of a number of songs from Ghosts were added to the remix section of ‘nin.com’ where fans could upload their own remixes, listen to and review the remixes from other fans, vote for their favourites, and so on. Second, Reznor launched an Internet-based ‘Film Festival’ on YouTube where he invited fans to create and upload their visual interpretations of the songs. The fans’ reception of the Ghosts project cannot be labelled as anything but exceptional. By the end of 2008 fans had uploaded more than 2,000 videos to the Film Festival, and an unknown but large number of user-generated remixes had been posted to ‘remix.nin.com’. Besides remixing and uploading the tracks from Ghosts I–IV, fans were also able to download nine of the original songs for free from the website. They were also offered four other product packages, ranging from a ‘$5 Download’ which included all 36 songs in various formats to a ‘$300 Ultra Deluxe Limited Edition Package’ which included downloads, CDs, DVDs and glossy booklets, all signed by Reznor himself. According to Reznor, during the first week after the launch 781,917 transactions generated $1,619,420 in sales revenue. In addition, the ‘$5 Download’ version was released on Amazon MP3 Downloads and remained as one of their top-selling albums, at least during March and April 2008.1 It is notable that this result was achieved while the album, in its entirety, obviously was also available via various illegal file-sharing networks and services.
Trent Reznor continued experimenting during the years that followed, both with his own projects and with others, but in September 2012, Reznor announced that his band How to Destroy Angels had signed with the Sony Music label, Columbia Records, to release a number of their upcoming albums (Reznor 2012). Reznor concluded in a Facebook post that ‘complete independent releasing has its great points but also comes with shortcomings’. When Nine Inch Nails’ eighth album ‘Hesitation Marks’ was released by Columbia Records in 2013, it marked the formal conclusion of Trent Reznor’s experiments with independent distribution and promotion.
Reznor reflects on his time as a DIY musician: ‘It took the wind out of my sails as far as thinking of direct-to-customer as a sustainable business for a musician. In a way, that experience gave me a pre-emptive look at music today. You’re not making money from albums; instead they’re a vessel for making people aware of you. That’s what led me to thinking that a singular subscription service clearly is the only way this problem is going to be solved. If we can convert as many music fans as possible to the value of that, in a post-ownership world, it would be the best way to go’ (Marchese 2017).
Reznor’s bruising experience of the disruption of the music economy during the first two decades of this millennium is a striking parable of the journey that the industry has taken since Shawn Fanning2 released peer-to-peer file-sharing to the masses in 1999 and changed the music industry forever. The insights gained during this turbulent process have been both costly and painful, but it was during this period and through experiments such as Ghosts I–IV that the contemporary music economy was forged.
While Ghosts I–IV was not as financially viable as Reznor would have liked; it was a creative and fundamental break with the twentieth-century music industry model where vertically integrated multinational music companies controlled how, when and where their albums are released, promoted and distributed. The core of the Ghosts I–IV project was not the set of tracks recorded in Reznor’s recording studio in the outskirts of Beverly Hills. Rather, it was Reznor’s relationship with his fans and in the thousands of remixes, videos, comments and blog posts uploaded to nin.com, YouTube, ninremixes.com and a host of other more or less shady places in the Cloud.
‘The Cloud’ has been used as a metaphor to denote the Internet since the late 1960s and early 1970s, when Vinton Cerf, Robert Kahn, Robert Metcalfe, Leonard Kleinrock, Larry Roberts and many others invented the technologies behind the network of networks. A cloud was considered to be a useful and vague enough symbol that could be used to summarize all the resources, cables and gadgets connecting the computers at the nodes of the network (Figure 0.1). These days, ‘The Cloud’ is still used as a metaphor for the Internet, but it also conveys other meanings. For more than twenty years, the computer company Sun Microsystems (acquired in 2010 by Oracle) pushed the slogan ‘The Network is the Computer’. Sun suggested back in those days that the resources in the Cloud would soon become so powerful that the computers at the network nodes would no longer have to be sophisticated and expensive but could be made extremely simple and cheap. Eventually, technology did not choose exactly that path, but today, the Network (or the Cloud) is indeed the Computer and a considerable proportion of the resources we use on a daily basis for computation and data storage are provided by large ‘server farms’ or ‘data centres’ owned and operated by the world’s dominating technology firms (see, e.g., Carr 2008).
Figure 0.1 The Cloud as an Internet metaphor
In this book, I apply the concept of the Cloud to the field of music in an attempt to capture how the music industry has been affected by this technological development. I examine how the industry during the first two tumultuous decades of the twenty-first century completely shifted its centre of gravity from the physical to the virtual – from the Disc to the Cloud. At the turn of the millennium, an average young party-goer in a large and mature music market such as USA, Japan, Germany or Australia mainly relied on CDs for their music listening. Since these early days of the digital music economy, a brief phase has both come and gone when music listeners acquired, stored and listened to their favourite songs as MP3s on their local devices. Today, recorded music is primarily stored on the aforementioned server farms and only has a transient existence on the music listeners’ devices as songs are streamed from servers to clients for the music listeners’ enjoyment. Music is no longer something that mainstream audiences own or collect – music is in the Cloud.
The purpose of this book is to explore the transformation of the music industry that mainly has taken place during the first two decades of this millennium. Of course, it is not the first time the music industry has been transformed by changes in the media environment. Changes in broadcast radio programming during the 1950s, the compact cassette during the 1970s and the deregulation of media ownership during the 1990s all had a tremendous impact on the structure and logic of the industry. However, the transformation that took place during the first decades of the twenty-first century is even more dramatic than the previous ones. Certainly, as I will stress in this book, there are many aspects of the twentieth-century music industry that remain unchanged today, regardless of whether the music is on the Disc or in the Cloud. The disruption has, however, been of such magnitude that it has been relevant to talk about a ‘new’ music industry dynamic or a ‘new music economy’ (D’Arcangelo 2007; Denis 2008; Goodman 2008). ‘Newness’ is by definition a transitory quality, so while we wait for the ‘new music economy’ to become just the ‘music economy’, it is relevant to explore its basic characteristics. Three tensions or dimensions are fundamental in order to understand the new music economy. I choose to refer to these as ‘connectivity vs. control’, ‘service vs. product’ and ‘amateur vs. professional’.
Connectivity vs. control
The
