New Nine Inch Nails Album, "The Slip", available free!

[Eihwaz]

http://theslip.nin.com/

Oh man, I figured a new album was going to be released on May 5, but I wasn't expecting him to have the whole album be released FOR FREE.

This is so epic. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_yes.gif

[Zorafim]

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to slip on nine inch nails.

[Nitro Vordex]

On 2008-05-05 00:18, Zorafim wrote:
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to slip on nine inch nails.

Genius.

[The_Gio]

Well their not my type of music,still cool tho for them to release their whole album for free.Kinda like what Tim Armstrong did,actually its exactly the same.

[Eihwaz]

On 2008-05-05 00:23, The_Gio wrote:
Well their not my type of music,still cool tho for them to release their whole album for free.Kinda like what Tim Armstrong did,actually its exactly the same.


I don't know much about Tim Armstrong, but I'd have to say the people who put the whole "let's release our music online via websites instead of through shops" on the map recently were Radiohead, although Nine Inch Nails has taken it to the next level, IMO.

[The_Gio]

Tim Armstrong is well known in the punk scene because of his projects,like Operation Ivy(which is one of my favorite bands) Rancid, The Transplants etc. He released his whole album on the internet 2 years ago I think. I like the fact why its being done and its because music shouldnt be paid for since its expression,ppl dont pay us to wear the clothes we want to wear.

[Neith]

Here's hoping this download link works http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_lol.gif

Free albums = epic win. Free NIN album = moar epic win

Should be interesting to see what kinda sound they're using this time.

Edit: Just finished listening- pretty much what I expected, typical NIN sound for sure. My opinion is that there wasn't a killer track, like some of the older albums, but it was still a pretty solid set of tracks. It's not so much something I'd listen to often, but probably when I'm busy, as music to keep me going.

Favourite track on the album is probably either Discipline or 1,000,000. Still think my favourite NIN song is The Perfect Drug, but for free, The Slip is a decent album.

It's actually nice to see free albums too, great of Trent Reznor to do this.

Next on my interest list- Judas Priest's 'Nostradamus', which releases in mid-June. Very yes.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: UrikoBB3 on 2008-05-05 07:51 ]</font>


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: UrikoBB3 on 2008-05-05 10:44 ]</font>

[Kent]

...About how long did it take any of you to get the download link e-mail? I've been waiting at least half an hour... And even specified two different addresses, just in case one of them was blocked. :/

I know with Ghosts, I had to e-mail their support, because I never got the e-mail (depsite, you know, paying $300 for the uber edition) in order to finally get a link...

[Neith]

On 2008-05-05 09:33, Kent wrote:
...About how long did it take any of you to get the download link e-mail? I've been waiting at least half an hour... And even specified two different addresses, just in case one of them was blocked. :/


My download link arrived instantly, but I had problems with Ghosts too (well, the teaser of Ghosts)- and I still don't have reply about that.

For The Slip, I specified my Hotmail address, and it arrived straight away.

[Kent]

Hmm... Mine took about half an hour.

[Sgt_Shligger]

I got mine instantly with an AIM address. It's alright so far, only on song two.

[Eihwaz]

I used Gmail, and it took a while for me to get the download link, maybe 10-15 minutes. It was probably due to the servers being overloaded with hardcore fantards like myself. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif

[Shadowpawn]

On 2008-05-05 01:18, The_Gio wrote:
I like the fact why its being done and its because music shouldnt be paid for since its expression,ppl dont pay us to wear the clothes we want to wear.



This logic kinda disturbs me. You do pay for the clothes you wear just as you pay for music you listen to in order compensate the artist. Saying music shouldn't be paid for is sort of a slap in the fact to all musicians who strive to create their art.

Nevertheless, it is cool to see a free album here or there.

[Leviathan]

This is the second time this year. =0

<Downloads.>

[Leviathan]

This is the second time this year. =0

They never fail me either. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

<Downloads.>

[Ketchup345]

Mine was instant, GMail.

I do have to say, this is a great way to get some new listeners. I downloaded the Radiohead album and now this one when I probably wouldn't have bothered otherwise.

Though I do want to know why they ask for an email address?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ketchup345 on 2008-05-05 15:55 ]</font>

[Monochrome]

Letting You is awesome, this was worth every penny I paid for it!

[Eihwaz]

On 2008-05-05 15:21, Ketchup345 wrote:
Though I do want to know why they ask for an email address?


I would assume so they can have limited-use download links that expire after a download or a certain amount of time. That way is more efficient than the traditional direct download.

EDIT: I'm really enjoying the album so far. It's like Year Zero but tighter and with a tad more variety (piano-only ballad with singing? lush ambient interlude?). Favorite songs so far are 1,000,000, Discipline, Head Down, and The Four of Us are Dying.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eihwaz on 2008-05-05 15:54 ]</font>

[Micro]

Nice find and thanks for sharing Eihwaz. ;o

[HUnewearl_Meira]

I've been fairly indifferent toward Nine Inch Nails in the past, but I've not been entirely objectionable to their music thus far, so I figure that "free" is just the right price. I'm listening to it right now. Some of this reminds me of Vol Opt's theme. Certainly though, the sound is typical of their body of work.


On 2008-05-05 14:36, Shadowpawn wrote:
This logic kinda disturbs me. You do pay for the clothes you wear just as you pay for music you listen to in order compensate the artist. Saying music shouldn't be paid for is sort of a slap in the fact to all musicians who strive to create their art.


The "artists" that are most compelled to create for the exclusive sake of income tend to not to be artists at all, but rather, something combining the features of a musician and a whore. The music industry's focus on more money now has choked Music as an art form, leading us to such atrocities as Britney Spears and boy-bands; when physical attractiveness is more important than aural quality, there is a problem of distinct significance. The internet is, thankfully, freeing us from this. Hopefully, as the real artists complete their contracts with recording companies, they'll choose not to renew, and pursue this new venue, instead.

[Hrigg]

One word:

WOOT

Listening now and loving every second of it =)

[Solstis]

Yay for free things.

I've been avoiding NIN for a while, but this seems like a good time to listen again.

[The_Gio]

On 2008-05-05 14:36, Shadowpawn wrote:

On 2008-05-05 01:18, The_Gio wrote:
I like the fact why its being done and its because music shouldnt be paid for since its expression,ppl dont pay us to wear the clothes we want to wear.



This logic kinda disturbs me. You do pay for the clothes you wear just as you pay for music you listen to in order compensate the artist. Saying music shouldn't be paid for is sort of a slap in the fact to all musicians who strive to create their art.

Nevertheless, it is cool to see a free album here or there.



first off,money shouldnt matter if the artist is making music out of love,second,your confusing buying clothes and wearing them,Buying them is a whole other story,just because you buy a shirt doesnt mean you have to wear it.Expression is a choice.And if you want to be an artist for the money,then dam,If the artist gives a CD for free its cool,its like a thank you to us for supporting them


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The_Gio on 2008-05-05 18:18 ]</font>


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The_Gio on 2008-05-05 18:34 ]</font>

[McLaughlin]

On 2008-05-05 18:18, The_Gio wrote:

On 2008-05-05 14:36, Shadowpawn wrote:

On 2008-05-05 01:18, The_Gio wrote:
I like the fact why its being done and its because music shouldnt be paid for since its expression,ppl dont pay us to wear the clothes we want to wear.



This logic kinda disturbs me. You do pay for the clothes you wear just as you pay for music you listen to in order compensate the artist. Saying music shouldn't be paid for is sort of a slap in the fact to all musicians who strive to create their art.

Nevertheless, it is cool to see a free album here or there.



first off,money shouldnt matter if the artist is making music out of love,second,your confusing buying clothes and wearing them,Buying them is a whole other story,just because you buy a shirt doesnt mean you have to wear it.Expression is a choice.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The_Gio on 2008-05-05 18:18 ]</font>


But you pay them for making the shirt when you buy it. How is that any different from paying for music that someone made?

You can love your job all you like, but it's still nice to be payed so you can, you know, live.

[Sgt_Shligger]

Also, I doubt the big motivator is being nice to fans. The motivator is spreading their music to people who wouldn't normally buy their CD's.

[Shadowpawn]

On 2008-05-05 16:30, HUnewearl_Meira wrote:
I've been fairly indifferent toward Nine Inch Nails in the past, but I've not been entirely objectionable to their music thus far, so I figure that "free" is just the right price. I'm listening to it right now. Some of this reminds me of Vol Opt's theme. Certainly though, the sound is typical of their body of work.


On 2008-05-05 14:36, Shadowpawn wrote:
This logic kinda disturbs me. You do pay for the clothes you wear just as you pay for music you listen to in order compensate the artist. Saying music shouldn't be paid for is sort of a slap in the fact to all musicians who strive to create their art.


The "artists" that are most compelled to create for the exclusive sake of income tend to not to be artists at all, but rather, something combining the features of a musician and a whore. The music industry's focus on more money now has choked Music as an art form, leading us to such atrocities as Britney Spears and boy-bands; when physical attractiveness is more important than aural quality, there is a problem of distinct significance. The internet is, thankfully, freeing us from this. Hopefully, as the real artists complete their contracts with recording companies, they'll choose not to renew, and pursue this new venue, instead.



I think you misunderstood what I was talking about. The guy I quoted stated that music should be free regardless of it's context and in absolute quantity whatever it be from the MTV brand musicians to the indiehead guys trying to be heard. That is what I objected to because it devalues it. No one simply creates music for music's sake anymore, at least not if you expect to make a living off of it. If there isn't a way to make a decent living of creating and disturbing your music (note that I am not talking about the involvement of any record labels in distribution) then what incentive is there to make music? What will have is music itself will quite possibly degrade to the point where we will have an absurd amount of shitty music because everyone will suddenly think there are a musician.

Now I'm saying there isn't bad music in mainstream, I'll be lying if I didn't however I'm just saying that although free music is nice and all but let's not declare that all music should be free because that's really a selfish incentive on our part and ignores the labor and time the artist put into that song. Also I love the fact that more artist are disturbing music on there own and would like to progress and evolve in the future.

tl;dr
Cliff Notes!
-d00d, I didn't say that, read moar!
-Free music rules but let's not play pirate for every song we download lest we scare the artist away
-42 bottles of GOD
- Even the true artist need a paycheck.
-Yay, internets!


On 2008-05-05 18:18, The_Gio wrote:


first off,money shouldnt matter if the artist is making music out of love,second,your confusing buying clothes and wearing them,Buying them is a whole other story,just because you buy a shirt doesnt mean you have to wear it.Expression is a choice.And if you want to be an artist for the money,then dam,If the artist gives a CD for free its cool,its like a thank you to us for supporting them




1. Money DOES matter, you need to live. Don't you?
2.Noone (http://www.basementboys.com/html/bb_records/images/nooneWEBLABELLP.gif) said that there weren't doing it for the sheer love of doing it, however that just isn't enough
3.You need to buy the shirt in order wear it, don't you? I'll be damned if I pay 70 dollars for a pair of jeans and hoodie and not wear it.
4. Some people are paid to wear clothes, they're models.
5. Never said giving away a CD was bad, I said that YOU said that (or what I took for it) "this is how music should be" as in all should be free as an incorrect statement. Unless it's webspace, we all know devaluing anything usually results in shitty quality. [NOTE THAT THIS DOES APPLY TO THE ABLUM THAT TOPIC IS DISCUSSING.]
6.I'm going to stop this right here because I'm about to turn into a broaderline (http://and-still-i-persist.com/wp-includes/images/BushPoster4.jpg) troll judging from my posts from this so I'm going to retreat to the FKLs and sip some GOD. *leaves*


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Shadowpawn on 2008-05-05 19:44 ]</font>

[The_Gio]

On 2008-05-05 19:07, Shadowpawn wrote:

On 2008-05-05 16:30, HUnewearl_Meira wrote:
I've been fairly indifferent toward Nine Inch Nails in the past, but I've not been entirely objectionable to their music thus far, so I figure that "free" is just the right price. I'm listening to it right now. Some of this reminds me of Vol Opt's theme. Certainly though, the sound is typical of their body of work.


On 2008-05-05 14:36, Shadowpawn wrote:
This logic kinda disturbs me. You do pay for the clothes you wear just as you pay for music you listen to in order compensate the artist. Saying music shouldn't be paid for is sort of a slap in the fact to all musicians who strive to create their art.


The "artists" that are most compelled to create for the exclusive sake of income tend to not to be artists at all, but rather, something combining the features of a musician and a whore. The music industry's focus on more money now has choked Music as an art form, leading us to such atrocities as Britney Spears and boy-bands; when physical attractiveness is more important than aural quality, there is a problem of distinct significance. The internet is, thankfully, freeing us from this. Hopefully, as the real artists complete their contracts with recording companies, they'll choose not to renew, and pursue this new venue, instead.



I think you misunderstood what I was talking about. The guy I quoted stated that music should be free regardless of it's context and in absolute quantity whatever it be from the MTV brand musicians to the indiehead guys trying to be heard. That is what I objected to because it devalues it. No one simply creates music for music's sake anymore, at least not if you expect to make a living off of it. If there isn't a way to make a decent living of creating and disturbing your music (note that I am not talking about the involvement of any record labels in distribution) then what incentive is there to make music? What will have is music itself will quite possibly degrade to the point where we will have an absurd amount of shitty music because everyone will suddenly think there are a musician.

Now I'm saying there isn't bad music in mainstream, I'll be lying if I didn't however I'm just saying that although free music is nice and all but let's not declare that all music should be free because that's really a selfish incentive on our part and ignores the labor and time the artist put into that song. Also I love the fact that more artist are disturbing music on there own and would like to progress and evolve in the future.

tl;dr
Cliff Notes!
-d00d, I didn't say that, read moar!
-Free music rules but let's not play pirate for every song we download lest we scare the artist away
-42 bottles of GOD
- Even the true artist need a paycheck.
-Yay, internets!


On 2008-05-05 18:18, The_Gio wrote:


first off,money shouldnt matter if the artist is making music out of love,second,your confusing buying clothes and wearing them,Buying them is a whole other story,just because you buy a shirt doesnt mean you have to wear it.Expression is a choice.And if you want to be an artist for the money,then dam,If the artist gives a CD for free its cool,its like a thank you to us for supporting them




1. Money DOES matter, you need to live. Don't you?
2.Noone (http://www.basementboys.com/html/bb_records/images/nooneWEBLABELLP.gif) said that there weren't doing it for the sheer love of doing it, however that just isn't enough
3.You need to buy the shirt in order wear it, don't you? I'll be damned if I pay 70 dollars for a pair of jeans and hoodie and not wear it.
4. Some people are paid to wear clothes, they're models.
5. Never said giving away a CD was bad, I said that YOU said that (or what I took for it) "this is how music should be" as in all should be free as an incorrect statement. Unless it's webspace, we all know devaluing anything usually results in shitty quality. [NOTE THAT THIS DOES APPLY TO THE ABLUM THAT TOPIC IS DISCUSSING.]
6.I'm going to stop this right here because I'm about to turn into a broaderline (http://and-still-i-persist.com/wp-includes/images/BushPoster4.jpg) troll judging from my posts from this so I'm going to retreat to the FKLs and sip some GOD. *leaves*


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Shadowpawn on 2008-05-05 19:44 ]</font>


Speaking as a Musician myself,If you want to make music out of love its possible,no ones saying thats your only job.What your doing is going with the idea of money makes the world go round,which is true.It is true but only if you rely on it and its possible not to.Some probably see you as a realist and me as a babbling hippie kind of person.I may not be right,that doesnt mean your not wrong,everyone has their opinion.

[seph_monkey]

On 2008-05-05 19:07, Shadowpawn wrote:

On 2008-05-05 16:30, HUnewearl_Meira wrote:
I've been fairly indifferent toward Nine Inch Nails in the past, but I've not been entirely objectionable to their music thus far, so I figure that "free" is just the right price. I'm listening to it right now. Some of this reminds me of Vol Opt's theme. Certainly though, the sound is typical of their body of work.


On 2008-05-05 14:36, Shadowpawn wrote:
This logic kinda disturbs me. You do pay for the clothes you wear just as you pay for music you listen to in order compensate the artist. Saying music shouldn't be paid for is sort of a slap in the fact to all musicians who strive to create their art.


The "artists" that are most compelled to create for the exclusive sake of income tend to not to be artists at all, but rather, something combining the features of a musician and a whore. The music industry's focus on more money now has choked Music as an art form, leading us to such atrocities as Britney Spears and boy-bands; when physical attractiveness is more important than aural quality, there is a problem of distinct significance. The internet is, thankfully, freeing us from this. Hopefully, as the real artists complete their contracts with recording companies, they'll choose not to renew, and pursue this new venue, instead.



I think you misunderstood what I was talking about. The guy I quoted stated that music should be free regardless of it's context and in absolute quantity whatever it be from the MTV brand musicians to the indiehead guys trying to be heard. That is what I objected to because it devalues it. No one simply creates music for music's sake anymore, at least not if you expect to make a living off of it. If there isn't a way to make a decent living of creating and disturbing your music (note that I am not talking about the involvement of any record labels in distribution) then what incentive is there to make music? What will have is music itself will quite possibly degrade to the point where we will have an absurd amount of shitty music because everyone will suddenly think there are a musician.

Now I'm saying there isn't bad music in mainstream, I'll be lying if I didn't however I'm just saying that although free music is nice and all but let's not declare that all music should be free because that's really a selfish incentive on our part and ignores the labor and time the artist put into that song. Also I love the fact that more artist are disturbing music on there own and would like to progress and evolve in the future.

tl;dr
Cliff Notes!
-d00d, I didn't say that, read moar!
-Free music rules but let's not play pirate for every song we download lest we scare the artist away
-42 bottles of GOD
- Even the true artist need a paycheck.
-Yay, internets!


On 2008-05-05 18:18, The_Gio wrote:


first off,money shouldnt matter if the artist is making music out of love,second,your confusing buying clothes and wearing them,Buying them is a whole other story,just because you buy a shirt doesnt mean you have to wear it.Expression is a choice.And if you want to be an artist for the money,then dam,If the artist gives a CD for free its cool,its like a thank you to us for supporting them




1. Money DOES matter, you need to live. Don't you?
2.Noone (http://www.basementboys.com/html/bb_records/images/nooneWEBLABELLP.gif) said that there weren't doing it for the sheer love of doing it, however that just isn't enough
3.You need to buy the shirt in order wear it, don't you? I'll be damned if I pay 70 dollars for a pair of jeans and hoodie and not wear it.
4. Some people are paid to wear clothes, they're models.
5. Never said giving away a CD was bad, I said that YOU said that (or what I took for it) "this is how music should be" as in all should be free as an incorrect statement. Unless it's webspace, we all know devaluing anything usually results in shitty quality. [NOTE THAT THIS DOES APPLY TO THE ABLUM THAT TOPIC IS DISCUSSING.]
6.I'm going to stop this right here because I'm about to turn into a broaderline (http://and-still-i-persist.com/wp-includes/images/BushPoster4.jpg) troll judging from my posts from this so I'm going to retreat to the FKLs and sip some GOD. *leaves*


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Shadowpawn on 2008-05-05 19:44 ]</font>



lol ok first you described a sell out

second i am a musician and my music is free, maybe it is because i love punk and i will be pissed with my self to already charge the poor (literally) bastards that like our music to have a copy of it.

the musicians themselves do not always design the shirts them selves and roughly get 10% of what the actual profit of there 20 dollar shirt, unless you are a greedy sell out and charge 50 bucks for that shirt.

it is there music they can do what they want, not charging is a way of saying "this is our music and made it so you can listen"

(some) people make music because they want to have their voice heard, if i really wanted money my arse would quit and get a real job.

if you want to sell out go for it i cannot blame you, i need food too. but i do not need to be rich as hell.

if loving music is not why you are a musician then you are doing the wrong job or you are just looking for another stupid shortcut.

to me music is best served free, delivers more a message than paying 30 bucks for sound and a pretty cd cover.

pardon any misspellings i am on a wii and do not own a computer. plus i just cannot type period.u

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: seph_monkey on 2008-05-05 22:04 ]</font>

[Nitro Vordex]

If buying major record labels artist's music were free, they'd go broke.

It takes money to produce music, money to get the instruments, money to record it, money to manufacture discs.
"Money makes the world go round." Music just gives it a smaller part of the push.

Of course, you don't HAVE to "sell" it, you could advertise your band on some public place(Myspace, Yearbook, Facebook) and still get lots of fans, although that's about all you'll get for a while. Then maybe a producer will like your music and actually pay you to do it.

If I sell my music for a price, why not buy other's music for a price? only seems fair to me. There's still the people who make music just for the heck of it, because they love it. I'm one of them, for now. But hey, if someone paid me to make music, I'd do it. I don't see a downside, as I'd still be doing what I love.

[Sgt_Shligger]

Of course musicians can let their music go for free. But wait! There's a problem! How are you going to distribute it? Placing the music on your own personal website or myspace or whatever is just gambling. If you want to get something done you pay someone to make a name for you. You get lucky finding someone to sign you to a record company.

Musicians play and write music for their love of it and for fun. But they need to live too. A big record company wants to make money distributing music and musicians provide that music. There will never be free LEGAL music for everyone because at some point people make money. A band, as I said earlier, can't just magically distribute itself through the web and get very listener in America to hear it. People need to help them do it. Even brilliant bands who go to bars and festivals and cover for famous musicians aren't always able to distribute themselves to truly get everyone hearing them.

tl;dr
-Musicians need people to distribute their music on a mass level.
-The people distributing it aren't musicians. Their businessmen.
-Musicians and record companies aren't just going to have a big hug and agree not to make money off of sales.

[Eihwaz]

First, in the post announcing the release of The Slip, Reznor said he was doing this as a thank-you for all the support from his fans over the years.

Secondly, the term "sell-out" is one of the most overused and retarded terms to grace any discussion of music. Specifically, I've never got the impression that NIN is making music for the "wrong reasons"; I feel that Reznor is making music because he honestly loves doing it. If he wants to charge some money for his music, I'm totally not against that.

Also, a lot of the problems with the commercialization of music has to do more with the record labels and less with the bands themselves. This is why I'm glad we've got some big-name artists like Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, and even Coldplay, willing to experiment with how to get music to the fans in a more efficient manner.

Thirdly, the argument about buying a t-shirt and not wearing it is inherently flawed. Why on Earth would you buy a t-shirt and then not wear it? If you weren't going to wear it, you wouldn't buy it.

The last thing I wanted was my thread turning into a bunch of gruesome quoting coupled with uninformed economics lessons. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_disapprove.gif

[Monochrome]

I think anyone who has seen Reznor perform live knows the man has passion for what he does. The only artist I would say I've seen perform better live than on cd. Vocally and musically, it hits HARD live.

Sometimes I buy t-shirts with the intention of wearing them only later to think, "zomg if I wear it, then it'll fade and wear out and eventually ill end up wiping goo off some car-parts with it." Thus it ends up hanging in the closet for many moons. That's fairly off-topic though..

[Kent]

Speaking of NIN... Check out what just arrived in the mail.
[spoiler-box]
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/8075/34339287na9.jpg
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/3739/1761.jpg
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/55/1664.jpg
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/64/996.jpg
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/51/498.jpg
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/70/1438.jpg
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/75/1699.jpg
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/48/1245.jpg
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/42/308.jpg
[/spoiler-box]
...http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif

[Eihwaz]

That is a glorious box set. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_eek.gif

I sort of want to go pick up Ghosts I-IV on CD, but I'm more interested in picking up the new Portishead (and/or the new Gnarls Barkley) first. I also don't know if I'm quite ready for nearly two hours of instrumental NIN material...how much of it is more ambient, and how much of it has more traditional song structure (albeit without vocals)?

[Kent]

The entire album is instrumental noise. It's very ambient, very atmospheric... The kind of music you'd think to find in a game with a fantastic soundtrack - just hearing it conveys a strong sense of being in a specific place, in a specific situation. That's really the best way to describe it.

It's fantastic noise, and great music to work to.

You could always go to http://ghosts.nin.com and download Ghosts I free, if you haven't already. It's a pretty good sample of the style of the entire set.