NIN is actually one of those bands where they haven't really put out a bad CD to me. There have been a couple where it takes me a couple of listens to truly appreciate it....but I still end up liking the entire thing.

Me too for the most part (especially when compared to other shit out there that's being spewed). I admit, I didn't care much for The Slip...and Year Zero wasn't my favorite, but I still liked it more than 90% of the other shit I find.

Piracy? It's destroyed the music business. No one sells albums and very, very very few actually earn enough to eek out a living, unless you're a Disney kid or a TV show talent winner (and that's short lived).

Labels aren't signing and developing talent over the age of 21. Labels are earning money on catalog re-releases. It's a gigantic mess and unfortunately, it isn't going away.

A good record costs a lot of money to create. There are studio costs, gear rentals, producer and engineer fees, maintenance, tech's, etc. and so on. Even these days, a "real" record still costs $250-300k to produce, if you're using Top-Line talent. That's a lot of album sales these days at $9.99 in order for the Artist and label to recoup, and that's before any profit.

Illegal downloading will only diminish NIN-type releases because no one wants to work for free.

Interesting. I've never given much thought about several of those points. Thanks for the feedback, Dane.

Thanks for your insight.

What's your opinion of the proposition that starving (or otherwise distressed) artists make the best art, generally speaking? It seems like a lot of rock artists do their best work on their first record or two and fall off after that. No doubt they become better musicians as their career progresses, but I'm not sure whether or not most of them make better music.

This is an incredibly difficult question to answer, as there are so many variables. I could probably write a ten page essay in an attempt to cover this topic.

I don't think that money affects artistic output nor does it affect the ability to create.

But briefly speaking, I think there are two different types of scenarios in play here:

1. Brand new band has an huge debut record and poor follow up
2. Brand new band has a quiet debut, finds an audience and continues to ascend and create great album after great album.

In scenario one, it's most likely that the artist or band has a lifetime of songs written for their debut. That debut connects with an audience and sells millions of records, gaining fans and putting pressure on the artist or band to create a similar followup, generally within a year. What happens then is that the Artist/Band will often feel that pressure and not respond well to it, which negatively affects their songwriting, performance and album sales.

It's difficult to create even one hit single, let alone 20 years worth of hit singles.

In scenario two, the Band/Artist creates music that connects with an audience but doesn't feel the pressure to replicate prior success. That Band/Artist grows creatively, whether it's song structure, harmonies, arrangements and so on. "Staying True" creatively can lead to a long and fruitful career but even then, people tend to get burned out working with each other.

Keep in mind, it's also about the "driver" of the Artist/Band. Is it a collaborative effort, like The Beatles or Eagles or Aerosmith, Van Halen or Rolling Stones? Or does it rely on one person, like The Who and Pete Townsend, Tom Scholtz and Boston, Danny Elfman and Oingo Boingo, etc.?

There are just so many unique factors at play that it's really difficult to say with a broad stroke but I do not believe that "starving" equates to better art.

I think I'll go **** myself, thx!

Picked it up on my lunch hour today. $7.99 at Target.

I'll give it a listen while I'm working.

I've gone through about 75% of it. So far, I like it, but I can tell that it may take a few listens before I like it as much as I ultimately end up liking it.

In terms of instrumentation, this album seems to be the least aggressive. Fine with me. Haven't totally "lost" myself with any of the songs after first listen.

I'm with the Dane/Pestilence/etc faction that says he's gotten stale.

Came Back Haunted did nothing for me, i've been a huge fan of his over the years but...

With Teeth was weak as well.

To me, its weird for a guy who's so successful and from what i've read in a "good spot" in his life (happily married, spends a lot of time with his kids)... to pull off material for an album called "Hesitation Marks".

He's not the same angry kid he used to be, it happens to pretty much every rock artist... the well of originality eventually runs dry.

9 tracks in.....and not bad so far. It's kind of a mix between Ghosts and Year Zero to me.

Keep in mind that in his very first film scoring attempt, he won an Oscar and a Golden Globe. Winning is amazing enough but his first film?

Musically, he's as creative as ever, if not moreso. Lyrically however, the well has run dry. He just doesn't have anything new to say, which happens. There are very few people that can crank out amazing tracks period, let alone for three decades.

I know that he enjoys the "Live" aspect of NIN, which is why he put together a new record (didn't want to be seen as an "oldie" tour) but his best work lie ahead in film.

I totally see what you're saying, and agree with all you said earlier about "hungry" not being the alpha and omega of creativity... a great example would 1984 from Van Halen, they were kings of the world at that point, yet it was their absolute masterpiece at the end of the bands original trajectory.

But with a NIN... its just hard to see maintaining the same level of creative originality with a band with a brand like that, when you're as accomplished and as rich as Reznor... its hard to see him making any "Hesitation Marks" on his arms.

Like you say, he needs to continue with film scoring... let NIN die a legendary death instead of going out on less than the past.

I "hesitate" to **** myself; is this a by-product of the album?

Listened to the album on my drive today.

Overall, it's pretty ok for me. Didn't absolutely love it or hate it the first time through. I'll report back after I give it three or four more listens. Lyrically underwhelming, but I more or less expected that when I heard the single a couple of months ago.