Rick Rubin saves the Music Industry

[myrtlebacker]

sorta :)

"Columbia is stuck in the dark ages. I have great confidence that we will have the best record company in the industry, but the reality is, in today's world, we might have the best dinosaur. Until a new model is agreed upon and rolling, we can be the best at the existing paradigm, but until the paradigm shifts, it's going to be a declining business. This model is done."

...

Rubin sees no other solution. "Either all the record companies will get together or the industry will fall apart and someone like Microsoft will come in and buy one of the companies at wholesale and do what needs to be done," he said. "The future technology companies will either wait for the record companies to smarten up, or they'll let them sink until they can buy them for 10 cents on the dollar and own the whole thing."

But that were just some appetizers, here's the link to a long article in the NY Times. A very interesting read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/magazine/02rubin.t.html?pagewanted=5&_r=1

[Bob Olhsson]

The subscription "model" is cool however I can't imagine it'll "save" the industry. He's still looking at music as being a top-down industry while it has always been fundamentally fan-driven. While he understands this from the standpoint of hardware and distribution, he forgot it's even more true of the music itself. The "bottom" that has always been the source of new music is in ruins. Rebuilding it and exposing potential fans to great NEW live musical performances is what I think will really save the industry.

We in the record business are way too full of ourselves and dwelling too much in the music of the '60s, '70s and '80s. It's time for something completely new that isn't a bunch of intellectualized crap. A nice '80s record made in somebody's bedroom isn't a solution that will rekindle anybody's passion for music.

[shikawkee]

The only person Rick Rubin is saving is Rick Rubin.

[southboundloco]

interesting read indeed...

[handofthehost]

Good read, thanks for that. Like a lot of people here, I'm very interested in the reconfiguration of the music industry. The power struggle between the record labels and the computer industry. It's heartening to read about Rubin's dedication to the art of music, over the resulting profit that drives the industry. He seems to understand that if you produce quality work, the rewards will be forthcoming. To date, record labels have pushed a lot of sub-par talent through the music industry infrastructure with no thought of their(or the artists') long term benefit. Rather, get a bunch of 20 year olds who don't know any better to go out on the road, live on crumbs and the rock'n'roll dream, while the infrastructure punches its clock and collects its fee. I don't believe Rubin can single-handedly right all the wrongs, but it's a good thing to have his influence in the mix.

[chrisj]

People wouldn't pay $19.95 a month to have a pipeline to all the music that is happening out there, no filters or limits.

People will pay $19.95 a month to have specific music that doesn't suck, just for them.

Rick's talking about 'word of mouth teams'. Oh yay, record company mooks paid to muddy the waters by taking whatever crap is being done, and talking it up AS IF it was worth talking about. Congratulations, dude, you can fuck up the only filter that's left, the personal level of people talking about what's any good. Way to go.

What price a connection to people who are NOT trying to bullshit you? What price a connection to music that is NOT focus group designed in a world where 'not focus group tested' is its own focus group test?

The difficulty is not giving access to product, restricting access to product, or promoting product. The difficulty is getting anybody to trust you anymore, AT ALL.

Hell, the Who and the Beatles are TV commercials now. There's the Doors, too bad they were just an utterly great bar band with a limited run, chained to the 60s.

Something is going to have to be worth caring about before anything gets better. I realize business is business, but there's such a thing as a bottom line, which is that music is an EXPERIENCE that engages with a listener to bring them something. All the focus on how to get the listener to give you something is fatally wrong, and the energy put into this is smothering everybody who ISN'T a born marketroid.

[Bob Olhsson]

The only "model" that works is one where advertising is not involved and people vote only with their wallets, i.e. it reflects what people are really buying. The closest we ever came to that was top-40 radio.

Rick's model is great for catalog but you're right Chris, it does absolutely nothing for new music.

[McAllister]

There was a great letter to thee NYTimes regarding this article. I am paraphrasing, but it went something like this:

As soon as Columbia found out that word-of-mouth was selling a ton of records, they immediately created a Word-of-Mouth Department. What they failed to realize was that if they release great music there's no need for that department.

M

[shikawkee]

There was a great letter to thee NYTimes regarding this article. I am paraphrasing, but it went something like this:

As soon as Columbia found out that word-of-mouth was selling a ton of records, they immediately created a Word-of-Mouth Department. What they failed to realize was that if they release great music there's no need for that department.

M

EXACTLY!!!!!

P.S.-I just don't believe subscription services
will work in the long run. It's just something
I feel deep down in my bones. It just won't
go over well enough with the masses to sustain.

This is just wasting energy when they could
spend it making better music. The new trend I love
is producers and/or labels who are afraid to tell an
artist/writer that their songs aren't strong enough
to hold up a 10-12 song record. Maybe they have five
killer tunes and the rest is weak. Why is everyone
tip-toeing around??? In the "old days" a freakin' half-way
decent producer wouldn't hold their job unless they were
cutting the absolute best material. And Geez Louise...
that freakin' last Dixie Chicks record? PUUUULEEESSE!
Sure it was decent but if they had as many great songs
as their last few records it would have been MASSIVE!!!!!!!!
Uuuuggggghhhhh!!!!!

Anyways, I could go on but why....NURSE!!!!

[Bob Olhsson]

...What they failed to realize was that if they release great music there's no need for that department.What too many fail to realize is that naked women on the cover and word of mouth are the only things that ever sold very many records that turned a profit.

[handofthehost]

What too many fail to realize is that naked women on the cover and word of mouth are the only things that ever sold very many records that turned a profit.

Word.:grin:

[nobby]

What too many fail to realize is that naked women on the cover and word of mouth are the only things that ever sold very many records that turned a profit.

If the music is good enough and the woman has pretty eyes, she doesn't have to show that much skin :Wink:


http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m63/jonnewyork/WhippedCream.jpg

[Kenny Gioia]

Save the Industry?

What industry are we talking about?

I believe that record companies will fail. Those are the guys grasping at straws right now.

Taking ringtones. Merch. Touring. It's not a unfair thing for them though. They need a bigger piece of that shrinking pie.

But…

They are in the wrong business IMHO.

They will fall along with Record World, The Wall, Sam Goody and Tower Records.

These companies were put out partly because of pirating but also because bigger corporations (Priceclub, Costco, Target etc) were taking loss leaders on record sales.

So can the MUSIC industry be saved? Absolutely.

Why? Because unlike most dinosaur industries, the demand hasn't gone away.

There is a COOL and FUN aspect to our industry. Everyone still wants to be a Rock Star. And money people still want to be in the business. Even if it doesn't make them any money.

I'm noticing a few trends right now:

1. Big Companies are starting to attach themselves to music. Some of them will start their own record labels just to promote their product. Not to make any money with it.

Imagine a Gucci, Abercrombie and Fitch, or Nike record label. These companies don't need to make any money on record sales. It would be worth it to pay John Mayer millions to wear their clothes and be a GAP spokesman.

2. I'm also noticing some artists records being available only at some clothes stores. Imagine (not true) if you could only buy Feist's newest record at the Apple store. Maybe they throw it on the newest ipods. Giving you the entire catalog for purchasing their devices. The artist gets no sales but blows up on touring and merch.

Music isn't going anywhere. Look for business's with lots of money to spend (waste) and you'll see them all jump in.

[Bob Olhsson]

Kenny, this is EXACTLY WHY we all need to bust our asses to preserve intellectual property.

If Wall Street gets its way, there will be a compulsory license for music replication and it will be impossible for artists to negotiate an exclusive deal with anybody.

[nobby]

Look for business's with lots of money to spend (waste) and you'll see them all jump in.

Jump in, the water's fine. Well, maybe a little oily.

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m63/jonnewyork/GaycoRecords.jpg

[shikawkee]

Kenny, this is EXACTLY WHY we all need to bust our asses to preserve intellectual property.

If Wall Street gets its way, there will be a compulsory license for music replication and it will be impossible for artists to negotiate an exclusive deal with anybody.

EXACTLY!!!

Been saying this for years.

[eagan]

The most basic thing that bugs me about any kind of general subscription service idea thrown around in recent years is that it reduces all music down to some generic product. Just some Stuff that comes out of the pipeline, all of it regarded as just more of the stream/pile of Stuff, with the delivery service itself regarded as the important product, and whatever comes through it is just an incidental item, a general commodity.

Which takes you right back to what Bob has been thumping the pulpit about; the idea of media and media technology companies wanting to reduce all products of creative work and the property rights associated with them to what they see as the most liquid, unrestricted form possible, so they can spend as little as possible on all that pesky accounting and expense of actually paying people for their stuff that's offered up.

It's never been an idea that I thought of very highly. I don't think that kind of service is an idea good for music in general, and I don't think it's good for the people who make music (at least in the forms I've seen suggested over the past decade or more), which in turn loops back around and is doubly bad for music by slowly destroying the sources of the "product".


But what the fuck do I know.



JLE

[Bob Olhsson]

It's really bottom-feeding. They can build a huge business out of new technology by exploiting the "commons" and cash out before the market drys up because there's no new "content" that people are interested in. When people need to pay for content, they are lots less inclined to pay for the latest and greatest playback technology.

Copyright absolutely stands directly in the way of technology profiteering. The question is why should technology profiteering be subsidized by some of the most poorly compensated individuals in our culture?