do you think PJ would ever release their new album for free?

J_LAWN

I honestly could see PJ releasing the new album "radiohead style", with it available online for free (or a small donation). I mean they could at least do it for TC members, with different types of albums for different costs (mp3 only: free, cd mailed to you: $10, cd, vinyl and some rare stuff:$35).

This model has worked exceptionally well for radiohead and NIN and i dont see why it wouldent be a success for PJ as well!

bigbadbill

Why not? But I can't imagine myself breaking rank to get the new PJ album online. I always hear it (the physical cd) for the very first time at midnight. But since Tower's not around any longer, who knows. I just might (be in favor of doing it that way, ala Radiohead).

Hub.

I love having the CD in hands and I prefer having a Wave format rather than a MP3 format. But, for some people, I think that would be a terrific idea.

indifferentman

God bless the band and all they do, but I honestly think they couldn't do that based on how motivated their record label has been in recent years to sell albums. There was a much bigger advertisement for the Avacado album then there was in a long time, and there's been more "commercialized actions" since then in general. I'd love to see it happen, but I really don't think it's likely that it will.

Personally, I think I'd pay them for the album anyway. Pearl Jam has meant to much to me over the years for me to download the album for free that way. I even made sure I pitched in like $5 toward the Radiohead album. You have to give dues to the things you really cherish.

snert

For me i would always buy the CD even if the new album were 'released' online for free. There is something about having an album physically although i can't explain what it is!

However, i did download Bonaroo as it was only avaiable online!

Mindless Drifter

i would much rather buy the cd.
As so many others have said, and it is true, there is just something great about having an actualy cd or album to hold.
I spoze it makes it that little bit more real.


fuck buying mp3s!!!

DewieCox

The big difference between Radiohead and PJ........people still buy Radiohead's music.

pjpitt89

to be honest, i dont see it happening. just from the prices of things recently. the SDE was more expensive on the site than in stores, ticket prices were as high or higher than previous tours. i know a lot of people say "well everything is more expensive now a days how is the band supposed to make their money" but then i read about other bands that have super low prices for their summer tours BECAUSE they know times are tough. anyway, not complaining, but my answer to the question is no

youngster

No because I think they know that there's a lot of people out there that would take advantage of it and get it for free. Bands work hard to write and record music and to just risk giving it away would be too risky. It might have worked for Radiohead, but PJ would never go for it.

oneforeachday

I think it's a novel concept. It only works if you're creating artificial scarcity or offereing the tiered approach like you said. In the Radiohead example, it wasn't just mp3's... it was reduced quality mp3's if I recall correctly, leading people to WANT to buy the real thing at a later time. Plus, I thought there was a delay between when it was released on the website for name your price, and the actual physical record.

I agree, there's still a significant number of people that want something "in their hand". Myself, my last 20 records or so were purchased on Amazon's mp3 store. So easy, so convenient, and due to a personal situation, I don't really have a setup available to take advantage of a better audio source than mp3 right now. I'm sure in a few years (hopefully that soon?) when I have a nice home theater setup, I'll have to re-buy some of the albums I like most.

Anyway, the reznor approach had more intricacies in it as well. The tiered approach was awesome and worked really great for him.

I'd have to check, but I also think (and it's just a guess, i'm ready to be wrong) that the fanbase of both of those artists is a little smaller than PJ? The purpose of some of those experiments is to reach out and connect with new fans, grow the people into more dedicated fans, that would actually find value in a signed something, or $140 box set etc.

A 10c only distribution of the new record (assuming it's "full" quality mp3... yeah, i know, oxymoron) just would not work. No matter how well intending (most) 10c members are, once the full quality mp3's are out there, game over. The point here is people are ALWAYS going to pirate stuff (music, games, movies, etc.). The challange I think is generating that "reason" to BUY. The old business model of stick a plastic disk in the store and they will but it... just doesn't work any more. Part of the problem is, it takes a pretty good understanding of what your fanbase (NOT just fanclubs in this case) is like, and where their hot buttons are. What WOULD they pay for. Are you just going to give things away in order to get more butts in seats at concerts... therefore selling shirts, cups, hats, bumper stickers, etc.etc.? The marketing side of that needs to be well understood. I think the Reznor's/Radioheads either knew that, or got lucky trying an experiment. However, you'll notice that the SAME thing probably won't work the second time around (but I could be wrong about that too).

If ONLY for the fact that I would love to see PJ thrive, I'd love to see them try something... but it needs to be well thought out. I'll probably buy whatever form it comes out in. I have a physical "thing" for every album, I won't do 'just' mp3 (but I did do 'just' FLAC for some of the boots).

Lastly, aren't they self releasing this newest record? the "record company wouldn't have it" argument doesn't work at that point? However, due to the need for alternate methods and channels for promotion, an "experiment" on the release style/type might be just what they need.

Ok, sorry for the book...

PJStatTracker

I anticipate them following the NIN Ghosts release model of having many several different release forms at varying prices. Ghosts was released online first, but at the time of the release, you could order the hard copies and your order included the immediate digital download, and the hard copies were delivered to your door later.

I believe it was $5 for the digital download (in whatever form you wanted .mp3, .flac), $10 for the cd + digital download, and then there were a few more fan specific, more expensive packages. They sort of followed this tiered pricing with the Ten reissue, and I expect it to continue to evolve with the new release. Releasing a cd as we are used to is becoming a quickly outdated concept.

DewieCox

They should do somethin similar to Josh Freese....

http://www.joshfreese.com/buynow/

benjs

indifferentman wrote:

God bless the band and all they do, but I honestly think they couldn't do that based on how motivated their record label has been in recent years to sell albums. There was a much bigger advertisement for the Avacado album then there was in a long time, and there's been more "commercialized actions" since then in general. I'd love to see it happen, but I really don't think it's likely that it will.

Personally, I think I'd pay them for the album anyway. Pearl Jam has meant to much to me over the years for me to download the album for free that way. I even made sure I pitched in like $5 toward the Radiohead album. You have to give dues to the things you really cherish.

You're forgetting a key point. They're unsigned now.

soulsinging

DewieCox wrote:

The big difference between Radiohead and PJ........people still buy Radiohead's music.

Took the words out of my mouth. People still want to buy and listen to Radiohead's new music. Even NIN to a lesser extent has more mass interest in new material. Not PJ. Everybody wants to see them live because they're amazing live, but they're not doing anything particularly interesting in the studio on albums anymore. I bet ITW sold more than this new album will.

blondieblue227

pjpitt89 wrote:

i know a lot of people say "well everything is more expensive now a days how is the band supposed to make their money" but then i read about other bands that have super low prices for their summer tours BECAUSE they know times are tough. anyway, not complaining, but my answer to the question is no

good point.

i say no to free album if it means raising ticket prices.

100 Pacer

soulsinging wrote:

DewieCox wrote:

The big difference between Radiohead and PJ........people still buy Radiohead's music.

Took the words out of my mouth. People still want to buy and listen to Radiohead's new music. Even NIN to a lesser extent has more mass interest in new material. Not PJ. Everybody wants to see them live because they're amazing live, but they're not doing anything particularly interesting in the studio on albums anymore. I bet ITW sold more than this new album will.

NIN is blowing everybody out of the water these days, including Radiohead, in terms of interest for new material and the marketing/sales approach behind releasing said new material.

Radiohead's download scheme for their last album worked in that it brought foot traffic into stores for those who wanted to pick up the "limited edition" LP release of the free album (a majority downloaded the album for free, and of those that chose to pay something for the album i believe the average amount paid was ~$10).

NIN pulled the same scheme with Ghosts I-IV, allowing the consumer to pay anything (including nothing), but also offering different versions, including the $300 version (of which 2500 copies sold out almost instantly). Ghosts sold very well (not only in terms of actual sales, but the hype and publicity and even increased interest in NIN, RE: the Slip), far better than In Rainbows since you brought up Radiohead.

the interest in new material from NIN can keep Trent busy enough that he doesn't even have to tour anymore to sustain himself, demand is just that rabid. the same can't be said for Radiohead, or even PJ, with all due respect,...

DewieCox

^^^I disagree. I woulda agreed, but In Rainbows was a smashing success and put Radiohead back on the map where they should be. I'd venture to say they're the most important band on the planet. EVERYBODY keeps their eyes on them.

Lennon_Cobain

pjpitt89 wrote:

to be honest, i dont see it happening. just from the prices of things recently. the SDE was more expensive on the site than in stores, ticket prices were as high or higher than previous tours. i know a lot of people say "well everything is more expensive now a days how is the band supposed to make their money" but then i read about other bands that have super low prices for their summer tours BECAUSE they know times are tough. anyway, not complaining, but my answer to the question is no

I think that we can all admit (even if you're not a fan) that Green Day is a more popular touring act these days that Pearl Jam. Green Day's ticket prices are $25.00-$49.50 for their upcoming tour.

DewieCox

Lennon_Cobain wrote:

pjpitt89 wrote:

to be honest, i dont see it happening. just from the prices of things recently. the SDE was more expensive on the site than in stores, ticket prices were as high or higher than previous tours. i know a lot of people say "well everything is more expensive now a days how is the band supposed to make their money" but then i read about other bands that have super low prices for their summer tours BECAUSE they know times are tough. anyway, not complaining, but my answer to the question is no

I think that we can all admit (even if you're not a fan) that Green Day is a more popular touring act these days that Pearl Jam. Green Day's ticket prices are $25.00-$49.50 for their upcoming tour.

I doubt they are a more popular touring act.

100 Pacer

DewieCox wrote:

^^^I disagree. I woulda agreed, but In Rainbows was a smashing success and put Radiohead back on the map where they should be. I'd venture to say they're the most important band on the planet. EVERYBODY keeps their eyes on them.

i was referring exclusively to the success of the "free" model when compared to NIN and Radiohead (where NIN has faired much better) and not in terms of putting a band "back on the map".

soulsinging

100 Pacer wrote:

NIN is blowing everybody out of the water these days, including Radiohead, in terms of interest for new material and the marketing/sales approach behind releasing said new material.

Radiohead's download scheme for their last album worked in that it brought foot traffic into stores for those who wanted to pick up the "limited edition" LP release of the free album (a majority downloaded the album for free, and of those that chose to pay something for the album i believe the average amount paid was ~$10).

NIN pulled the same scheme with Ghosts I-IV, allowing the consumer to pay anything (including nothing), but also offering different versions, including the $300 version (of which 2500 copies sold out almost instantly). Ghosts sold very well (not only in terms of actual sales, but the hype and publicity and even increased interest in NIN, RE: the Slip), far better than In Rainbows since you brought up Radiohead.

the interest in new material from NIN can keep Trent busy enough that he doesn't even have to tour anymore to sustain himself, demand is just that rabid. the same can't be said for Radiohead, or even PJ, with all due respect,...

I agree that Trent's work these days has a pretty high profile, maybe higher than at any point in his career. The last tour was a smashing success and the last 2 albums seemed to meet with pretty positive reception. But I think Radiohead has the edge in terms of making waves. Trent's an innovator and he's working damn hard to keep people aware of what he's doing. I don't know how you can say he doesn't have to tour... he's been touring pretty much non-stop since Ghosts dropped. But Radiohead doesn't do a damn thing and barely tours but people are still salivating their every release. I like NIN better, but nobody makes critics and mainstream rock fans pop wood like Radiohead.

But that's beside the point. The point is, PJ does not have anywhere near the level of interest that either of these two does. People want to see them live, but by and large, nobody really cares about whatever new material they're putting out.

Zod

I've never paid for mp3's and I never will, I'll never forgive them for the death of CD's

that being said... Pearl Jam doesn't tour that much compared to other bands. So I think they need alternative ways to raise cash, so I can't see them giving the album away for free.

I can't even see them selling a cd online for 10 dollars. Avacado wasn't even sold online for 10 dollars. Allthough with Avacado they kicked in a bonus live concert on cd, which got me to buy it online instead of through a store.

The other posters are correct.. when stuff goes onsale on the 10c website and retail distribution. Its generally found cheaper in retail distribution like best buy or amazon. So I think 10c would keep going the route of charing full price but kicking in a bonus item.

JKestle

soulsinging wrote:

DewieCox wrote:

The big difference between Radiohead and PJ........people still buy Radiohead's music.

Took the words out of my mouth. People still want to buy and listen to Radiohead's new music. Even NIN to a lesser extent has more mass interest in new material. Not PJ. Everybody wants to see them live because they're amazing live, but they're not doing anything particularly interesting in the studio on albums anymore. I bet ITW sold more than this new album will.

STRONGLY DISAGREE....Riot Act and Avocado are two incredibly strong albums.
Get Right, Green Disease, Save You, You Are, Life Wasted, Marker in the Sand, Big Wave, Army Reserve
"not doing anything particularly interesting" :?:

Can't say why, but I ended up buying 2 of the self-titled :?

PJStatTracker

100 Pacer wrote:

Radiohead's download scheme for their last album worked in that it brought foot traffic into stores for those who wanted to pick up the "limited edition" LP release of the free album (a majority downloaded the album for free, and of those that chose to pay something for the album i believe the average amount paid was ~$10).

NIN pulled the same scheme with Ghosts I-IV, allowing the consumer to pay anything (including nothing), but also offering different versions, including the $300 version (of which 2500 copies sold out almost instantly). Ghosts sold very well (not only in terms of actual sales, but the hype and publicity and even increased interest in NIN, RE: the Slip), far better than In Rainbows since you brought up Radiohead.

that's not quite true...NIN never did a "pay what you want, including nothing" scheme with Ghosts. He gave the first 9 of the 36 tracks away for free, and the complete download was $5. At no point did he give the entire album away for free, although he's pretty clear that he doesn't care if you give it to people since he knows that's what is going to happen anyway.

but both NIN and Radiohead offered a super deluxe edition of the albums at hefty prices for the hardcore fans. Both sets are awesome, I have the super deluxe In Rainbows and it includes an entire second disc of tracks, really fucking awesome tracks, that didn't make the album. Basically makes it a two disc album. Selling those sets is one way bands can make money of their album sales now that everyone is downloading stuff for free. I see that trend continuing, as it has only been successful.

I do think at least some people in the Pearl Jam business are paying attention to that, how can you not be? I would like for them to be paving the road for some of this stuff, but NIN keeps beating everyone to the punch. I think Nails fans have it the best right now. Trent is super progressive, and offers a direct line from himself to the fans...his twitter account is actually worth paying attention to.

PJSEMPRE

I don't think they will release the new album for free.
Maybe I'm getting old but I still love to buy CDs.
On the other hand, I would love to see PJ trying a challenging thing.

PJSEMPRE

...Another high-profile manager said he was still trying to process the boldness of the Radiohead venture. "My head is spinning, honestly," said Kelly Curtis, who represents Seattle-based Pearl Jam. "It's very cool and very inspiring, really."

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/oct/02 ... radiohead2

danny

J_LAWN wrote:

I honestly could see PJ releasing the new album "radiohead style", with it available online for free (or a small donation). I mean they could at least do it for TC members, with different types of albums for different costs (mp3 only: free, cd mailed to you: $10, cd, vinyl and some rare stuff:$35).

This model has worked exceptionally well for radiohead and NIN and i dont see why it wouldent be a success for PJ as well!

good chance would be nice to hear news about new album!

hopethatuchoke

pjpitt89 wrote:

to be honest, i dont see it happening. just from the prices of things recently. the SDE was more expensive on the site than in stores, ticket prices were as high or higher than previous tours. i know a lot of people say "well everything is more expensive now a days how is the band supposed to make their money" but then i read about other bands that have super low prices for their summer tours BECAUSE they know times are tough. anyway, not complaining, but my answer to the question is no

Agree 100%. I could never see them giving away an album for free. Didn't Stone charge for both the Bayleaf album and the single? They don't seem to be the generous type. If they were to do it, it would be awesome though.

12345AGNST1

Im sure they will release it digitally before it's officially out, but not for free.

I cant see them doing this TBH.

PJStatTracker

PJSEMPRE wrote:

I don't think they will release the new album for free.
Maybe I'm getting old but I still love to buy CDs.
On the other hand, I would love to see PJ trying a challenging thing.

I think no matter what happens, you'll be able to get a CD. I don't think any major band has released a proper new album without there being hard copies of it as well at some point, have they?