This is a little off-topic, but I’m sitting here listening to the first part of Ghosts I-IV by Nine Inch Nails, which is being distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 license. Now, technically, this license isn’t really “open source” as laid forth by the Open Source Definition, but it seems to me that the CC licenses are about as close to open source as we’re likely to see from most bands…

Nine Inch Nails isn’t the first band to release music under a Creative Commons license, of course. Look at, for example, Magnatune — tons of really interesting music, being distributed under CC and people have been very supportive. (Feel free to share your own examples of CC music in the comments. Always interested in more good stuff to listen to.)

But I find it really encouraging that a high-profile band like Nine Inch Nails is experimenting with an “open source” method of distributing music. (Should NIN properly be called a band since Trent Reznor does most of the studio work? Eh, I’ll go with “band” here.)

I wonder if NIN could be entertainment industry’s “Netscape”?

Which is to say, when the decision was made to open source the Netscape codebase, open source itself received a huge boost in terms of legitimacy and public awareness — so I wonder if NIN using a CC license could help bolster a more open model of distributing music. Granted, Netscape itself died off — because AOL chose to follow a proprietary model of development under the name Netscape — but the codebase has lived on and flourished.

I see a lot of parallels between software distribution and creation, and the creation and distribution of music. It’s obvious that the standard proprietary model of making and distributing music is failing — look at the continued decline in music sales, and the utter failure of the music industry to promote good music. Most of the CDs that get pushed out of the major labels these days are the musical equivalent of Microsoft Bob. Music that’s, in theory, supposed to appeal to a wide audience, but actually has no lasting appeal at all.

At the same time, the proprietary method of developing and distributing software is going by the wayside — and the entertainment industry could take a few lessons from the open source community here. Make it easier for fans to have access to music. Let people share music — which will, directly, contribute to increased sales. I can’t buy albums by a group I’ve never heard of, and forbidding sharing makes it much harder to discover new music.

I also wonder when, or if, we’ll see collaborative albums by people who’ve never met and who’ve just shared files online become a common method for producing music?

So, how’s it sound?

As a side note, I’ve listened to the first “album” (sigh… digital distribution has totally killed the album concept, hasn’t it?) and find it… interesting, but totally unlike the Nine Inch Nails I followed in my twenties. I have a hard time drawing a line between early NIN albums and performances (I had the good fortune to see NIN in St. Louis in the early 90s, in a very small club) and the current stuff.

I’m not saying NIN should sound the same from year to year, but when I listen to early R.E.M. and then pop in New Adventures in Hi-Fi I can see how they got from point A to point B. (Which is, for me, one of the rewarding things about listening to music — watching the evolution of a band and its music.)

I like Ghosts I, I can write to it, but I would really love to have another straightforward angsty and guitar-heavy album like Broken if Trent still has it in him…

Also, the final note here — the digital model is working for NIN here: I will be buying the full set, I’m curious to hear the rest after getting a sample and I want to support this model of distribution.

This entry is filed under Advocacy, Marketing open source. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.