The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Rick Rubin NY Times Article Virtual Instrument Plugins
Old 5th September 2007
  #1
Lives for gear
 

Rick Rubin NY Times Article

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/ma...ne&oref=slogin

What are your thoughts on this?

I personally dont see Rick Rubin "saving the music industry". Seems like Columbia only hired him, so they can blame Rubin in case the label doesnt recover. WTF is this whole "music business savior" crap about anyways? A music producer saving this industry? Are you kidding me? Rubin is talking about stuff Bertelsmann President Middelhoff tried to do 7 years ago!!! Back then he wanted to get the labels to accept a flat rate subscription service for Napster. We all know how that ended. They're still debating over a "solution" we already had 7 years ago. 7 years ago! Can you believe it? And now Rubin will come along, snip with his finger and just save the industry? Get outta here. Doesnt seem like the labels want to change (their approach or business structure), otherwise they would've already done it during the last 7 years.

IMO Lefsetz found the right words for the whole thing...

Quote:
Quoting David Geffen... That's how you know a piece is irrelevant. Even if the old man came across as pretty wise. I mean didn't David Geffen FAIL in the modern music business? As well as the modern FILM business? And THIS is the guy you quote? Maybe if Lynn Hirschberg had quoted the kid on the street, someone we hadn't heard from before, instead of referencing a FOCUS GROUP, we might have cared.



Oh, don't get me wrong. I enjoyed the article. Well, the first half. Wherein they spoke about how the record business is ****ED! I haven't seen so much ENGLISH in the "New York Times" previously. But I couldn't stop scratching my head and wondering what the **** Rick Rubin was DOING at Columbia. I mean if he really wanted to revolutionize the business, make a difference, would he have taken a job at a MAJOR LABEL? You know he did it for the check.



He doesn't go to the office. Yup, that's gonna work, an absentee executive. I'm not saying he SHOULD, just that this begs whether he's the RIGHT GUY! Imagine a sports team, the Yankees, with an absentee MANAGER! Yup, play really hard in center field while Joe Torre contemplates the game at home. He's thinking really hard. He doesn't like to wear a uniform. But he cares. Huh?



So Steve Barnett is in the building. Isn't this like saying the THIRD BASE COACH CAN RUN THE TEAM? You don't want someone who's officious, who can make the trains run on time, but a personage who is an INSPIRATION!



Rick Rubin might be an inspiration to artists. But a business man? Isn't it Def Jam that sold for all that money, not AMERICAN? And if you listen to the Black Crowes, American's biggest act ever, they give Rubin NO CREDIT! And isn't being a record exec first and foremost about FINDING TALENT? Sure, a great producer makes a huge difference. But you can't polish a turd. You've got to START with a rough diamond!



As for a new office... An expensive one, at that. Why don't you explain to your acts, who you make record at home on Pro Tools, why you have to blow all this money. These same acts who you don't pay royalties. Yup, that's what I DO when I'm in a financial bind. Buy a new chair, a new car. Because if I FEEL good, I DO good. HUH?



And wait a second, I thought Rick Rubin didn't go to the office anyway. If they make it a pooh-bah pad, WILL HE? And will they hire enough execs to FILL the building, unlike at Colorado Avenue?



Utterly ridiculous. A big time exec told me he could run his label group with independent contractors. A la Silicon Valley. With only a small cadre of full-time employees. I don't know if this is right, but at least he's THINKING! What is Rick Rubin doing here?



Oh, Rick's made some great records. Brought some acts back from the dead. Made a second-rate act, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, into a front liner. But if being a producer qualifies you to run a label, fine arts majors would run America's biggest corporations. Steve Jobs doesn't hand the reins of Apple to Jonathan Ive, and if he did, his board would go ****ing NUTS! But who is the Sony board? Who DO these guys report to? Or is it just brother to brother, Stringer to Stringer.



Rubin ends up looking like a spoiled kid, frustrated that he can't effect change. Shouldn't that have been part of the deal? That he wouldn't take the gig without monetized P2P?



But that's just the point. That WAS in the article. The labels are afraid that although licensed P2P might SAVE them, it might KILL them too. That they might give away the store, kill the recorded music business. They don't want that blood on their hands, so they won't change, or will do so slowly. It would be like Microsoft not creating Explorer, not competing with Netscape, saying the Internet is a newfangled fad.



There IS a crisis. The major labels ARE making music free. They WILL be sold to the highest bidder for a pittance if they don't solve their problems. But the way out isn't hiring an iconoclastic, bearded guru, but by changing the INFRASTRUCTURE! Changing how they distribute and CHARGE!



But change can't happen. Because instead of having student interns, young people have got to WORK at the label. And the labels have fired not only the youth, but everybody who does the day to day work. All they've got is executives. So, Columbia has brought in someone hipper. This is like Apple bringing in Gil Amelio. It's not ENOUGH!



And maybe you don't know who Mr. Amelio IS. That proves the point. The old business is dead. Mourn no more. The new will be built not by old farts, but young 'uns fully familiar with tech. Oh, they're not like their parents, they don't think everything in life should be free. They're CAPITALISTS! But, if you don't respect them, they'll rob you blind.



The youth come up with Facebook. Columbia comes up with Rick Rubin. Where would YOU put your money?
Old 5th September 2007
  #2
Lives for gear
 

My thought on this? The best read I've had in a LONG time! Right or wrong, Rick Rubin is one of the most fascinating men in the biz IMO. Definitely one of my favorite producers (I'm in love with my Danzig albums), and the whole "go green" thing is soething others should learn from as well.

Save the music industry... Yeah... We all know what happens to saviors heh
Old 5th September 2007
  #3
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

what i find fascinating is that rubin sounded like he's been reading and absorbing lefsetz's rants. i'm paraphrasing, but rubin said things like:

"no wonder people don't buy cd's anymore, one song is great, the next is..."

"we might have the best label, or we might have the best dinosaur. until the paradigm changes, the business will continue to decline. the old model is dead."

"we have to make decisions based on the music. they don't want to make music, they want to sell music. that has to change."

"for 50 years they've been able to push not-so-good product thru the channels because of muscle and lack of consumer choice. that doesn't work anymore."

here we have a guy who sounds like he was groomed by lefsetz, and all lefsetz does is dismiss him outright. it's downright bizarre...


gregoire
del
ubk
.
Old 5th September 2007
  #4
Lives for gear
 

Death to the majors...

They used to be a bunch of crooks putting good records out in the 60's and 70's
But since they are a bunch of corporate crooks putting only bad records out...
Show me a ground breaking record released by a major in the last 25 years?

I understand the problem caused by P2P but as a music fan I can see the pros too. If i really like an album I've downloaded, I will buy it on vinyl anyway.
Old 5th September 2007
  #5
Lives for gear
 
dokushoka's Avatar
 

Great read. Thanks for posting this.
Old 5th September 2007
  #6
Lives for gear
 
noiseflaw's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by quietdrive View Post
[url]
IMO Lefsetz found the right words for the whole thing...
Maybe Columbia should hire Lefsetz instead of Rubin, he sure knows what they really should do



Yes that NY Times article was a fantastic read.

I was inspired by Rubin's attitude and really encouraged.

But I am still very cautious about the record companies - let's face it they ARE greedy, corporate clowns.

They may try to start taking monies out of merchandising and tour income from the artists.

Rubin's Philosophy and approach have real integrity because he cares and loves music - sadly as can be witnessed with today's music and corporate desperation there is a massive lack of integrity and genuine love of music. It is all about 'Product' and 'Profit', the majors have completely lost their bottle and are running scared...

Will they have the balls to adopt Rubins approach wholeheartedly? will they 'get it'? Do they really care?

It is a brave and bold step for Columbia to hire Rubin, and it seems it was taken becuse they have run out of options and answers.....

I wish Rubin and his team all the best because my god they are gonna need it.
Old 5th September 2007
  #7
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by u b k View Post
what i find fascinating is that rubin sounded like he's been reading and absorbing lefsetz's rants. i'm paraphrasing, but rubin said things like:

"no wonder people don't buy cd's anymore, one song is great, the next is..."

"we might have the best label, or we might have the best dinosaur. until the paradigm changes, the business will continue to decline. the old model is dead."

"we have to make decisions based on the music. they don't want to make music, they want to sell music. that has to change."

"for 50 years they've been able to push not-so-good product thru the channels because of muscle and lack of consumer choice. that doesn't work anymore."

here we have a guy who sounds like he was groomed by lefsetz, and all lefsetz does is dismiss him outright. it's downright bizarre...


gregoire
del
ubk
.
Well, Lefsetz is dismissing Rubin for a very good reason. Rubin has ZERO business knowledge... he doesnt even wanna be in the office. So what is he gonna do, fly into the office on his cloud once a month? Gimme a break. I like Rubin's approach "Lets focus on the music, instead of how to sell the product". But I dont see some old fart changing this industry. We need some young guys, who UNDERSTAND how the fans think. The fact that Columbia needs a focus group to figure out that fans no longer listen/watch radio or mtv, and check out bands mostly through word ouf mouth, just shows how out of touch these guys really are. This stuff is COMMON KNOWLEDGE!

#1 business rule: KNOW YOUR CUSTOMER
Old 5th September 2007
  #8
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by noiseflaw View Post
It is a brave and bold step for Columbia to hire Rubin, and it seems it was taken becuse they have run out of options and answers.....
That's why it is NOT a brave, but a DESPERATE move. I probably dont have to tell you that the NY Times Article is coming from Columbia's PR department. So, as I said before, they just hired him to cover their own asses, in case Columbia doesnt recover. That's why they're marketing Rubin as "the savior of the music industry". In case he fails, they can say "well, we did everything in our power, we even hired the mighty Rick Rubin. It's not our fault that we're going down!"
Old 5th September 2007
  #9
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by quietdrive View Post
Well, Lefsetz is dismissing Rubin for a very good reason. Rubin has ZERO business knowledge...
I disagree. In recognising the need for hooks and structure in hip hop, Rubin opened up a whole new market which has been thriving since...which is pretty good business knowledge in my mind.

He may not know how to run a normal nine to five business but he has the vision that the music industry lacks.

There are plenty of pen pushers in this business...the balance needs to be found.
Old 5th September 2007
  #10
Lives for gear
 
dokushoka's Avatar
 

I don't know, I see this as a good PR move on the behalf of Columbia. The fact is, even amongst the record buying public, corp. labels have a TERRIBLE reputation. Appointing one of the most respected and best known producers of modern times as head of their label will instantly buy back some cred in many people's eyes. I mean who better to make you look like your label is "all about the music" other than Mr. All About the Music himself?

I think its silly to think that anybody really has the answer to what the industry should do next. The music industry hasn't really followed any other industry except maybe organized crime.
Old 5th September 2007
  #11
Lives for gear
 
ricfoxx's Avatar
What!!!

It's so funny how negative people on this forum are, you complain and whine about the state of the industry and then somebody comes along and claims to want change and all you can do is be the negative person you probably are about everything in life It's a personality trait, hell thats day one sh!t.

Nancy naysayers! Rick Rubin credentials speak for themselves. He would just be a figurehead of the corporate monkeys and as for his ability as a business man...well...he has been pretty good at marketing himself, I mean, we not only know the music that he has involved in making but, we also know the personna.

Interesting though!

Keep it on the sunny side,
Ric

Last edited by ricfoxx; 5th September 2007 at 01:35 PM.. Reason: grammar
Old 5th September 2007
  #12
Lives for gear
 
noiseflaw's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by quietdrive View Post
That's why it is NOT a brave, but a DESPERATE move. I probably dont have to tell you that the NY Times Article is coming from Columbia's PR department. So, as I said before, they just hired him to cover their own asses, in case Columbia doesnt recover. That's why they're marketing Rubin as "the savior of the music industry". In case he fails, they can say "well, we did everything in our power, we even hired the mighty Rick Rubin. It's not our fault that we're going down!"
Yes it is a desperate move...for sure! I agree.

However with regard to your point concerning Rubin being 'set up' to take the rap (pun intended) when it all goes belly up, I do not agree.

I mean he is being brought in at the 11th hour to try to save their asses and careers, some would argue that it has already reached ground zero for the majors and that the midnight bells have tolled loud and long for some time now...

Let us see. Somehow I think Rubin should have been hired 5 years ago to advise them, but the majors were at that time in 'combat' mode against file sharing. Yes they were giving it serious 'Gollum' over their business model it was extremely precious to them and they were not about to change it.

Due to the Bloated complacency and short-sighted attitude of the majors it seems as if the only strategy they have developed it the strategy of 'We react to the future when it's here'. They lack the philosophical and creative flexibility of a real forward thinking business that has to deal with competition in the global market.

They could not, would not take any risks and be creative in the way they managed the emerging digital paradigms and they PAID for it big time.

Is Ric Rubin the quiet, eccentric, maverick genius cowboy come to save the bad guy's grateful snivelling asses?... If it means a better deal for the artist and better music in the marketplace I say great! Ride into town and save us all. But if it is just for same old payola, corporate, cynical, product-crap, then I guess he fell of his horse and got trampled by it.
Old 5th September 2007
  #13
Lives for gear
 
Sui_City's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by recall View Post
I disagree. In recognising the need for hooks and structure in hip hop, Rubin opened up a whole new market which has been thriving since...which is pretty good business knowledge in my mind.

He may not know how to run a normal nine to five business but he has the vision that the music industry lacks.

There are plenty of pen pushers in this business...the balance needs to be found.
This is where i disagree with you heh

"Hooks & Structure"?

To me, that is all that pop music has become.

So Rick introduced that to Hip Hop 20+ years ago. then what?

People go on and on about "hooks". But "verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus" has been beaten to death. Almost any modern music that i hear nowadays is that structure with a hook thrown in.

Where's the worm?

As a "music loving music lover", I want a worm. A nice tasty worm at the end of my hook. Where's the substance in the same idea revisited a million times?

I'm not talking about "Prog" structures. But Rick only knows one thing, applied to a multitude of artists. Granted, he is good at essentially staying out of the way while giving a great pep-talk.

Lefsetz said that Rick "Made a second-rate act, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, into a front liner." But i think it is the other way round. They have become a second-rate act. They used to be adventurous. Now they are a slightly edgy "adult contemporary" band.

It is no longer about finding great artists. No "Great Artist", along with a "Great Producer" is going to save anything.

It is the business model that is at fault.

There has never been a shortage of "Great Artists". There is **** and there is good and there is great. Always has been that way. And no "Mega-Producer" will be able to change that. And no way are the majors, Columbia or any other, going to stop promoting bread-and-butter acts. (regardless of whether it works as well as it did or not.)

Rick will focus on developing a few artists. Yay. But that is about it.

And this is why, to me, Rick won't save this business. Because you can't save this business. Not the way it is now.
Old 5th September 2007
  #14
I think the best thing on this move is that I hope the labels would begin hiring music guys instead of economists or corporate people to run the labels
....the downside is that many of these music guys will produce most o the artist of the labels...making it very dificult for new producers and bands without any inside connections.
Old 5th September 2007
  #15
Lives for gear
 
paultools's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by recall View Post
I disagree. In recognising the need for hooks and structure in hip hop, Rubin opened up a whole new market which has been thriving since...which is pretty good business knowledge in my mind.
The only need for hooks/melodies/"structure" in early hip-hop was to homogenize and pasteurize it for mass consumption. It is the antithesis of what Rubin is preaching now, but created a style that produced billions in cash while diluting the artform. Shrewd business indeed, but that wheel was already spinning with the likes of Elvis and the Stones. Rubin didn't re-invent it.
Old 5th September 2007
  #16
The problem is not only the corporate guys at the labels...the contracts, the deals and the relationship between the labels and the artist....all the attorneys that works only for the interest of the labels totally againts the artist benefits and interest.

If you are talking about music and songs, we should start respecting the artists...so the labels should change their deals!

I want to see if that will change!!

Now the indie artist have more power ......so the problem is not only about making great songs and records.
Old 5th September 2007
  #17
Gear Head
 

I liked this article. Yes it is a PR piece but Rick made a few important points.
My understanding is that Rick knows the existing model is dead and is waiting (praying possibly) for another model to come in as soon as possible (i.e. the subscription model).

However, rather than say "party over" Rick/Columbia know that they need to be the best of the dying breed rather than give up completely. To turn the record company around what you need to do is have the best hit ratio. It doesnt matter if record companies are all losing money, Columbia wants to be the one that "loses less" money than everybody else.

For that to happen Rick needs to change the traditional record company business ethic of 1 artist pays for the other 30, by releasing less records, but more winners. That is why Rick is there. It's not to be some business guru, and neither does he need to be a business guru to turn the company around.

Why are indie labels doing better than majors at the moment? Even though they both operate in the same economic climate? It's because they dont need 1 artist to cover the losses of the other 30. All Rick has to do is sign 10 artists instead of 30 and make sure at least 8 win. Columbia take less revenue, but they also take less losses and are far more profitable.

Rick also notes that the business is in selling "art" not product. Art is not about the masses, it's about selling premium items to the people who appreciate it. Coltrane is art, no one is haggling about the price of a Coltrane Cd. If it's £15 pounds people will pay because it's quality art. Pop music is product and is price sensitive. Rick has identified that the more "art" Columbia produces the more people are likely to have a deeper appreciation of the artist and ultimately more consistent sales. I'd rather release 5 jazz cd's knowing that each one would "definitely" sell 500k than sign a "bland" pop act who could "potentially" sell 5 million. "Potential" doesnt pay the rent, especially in hard times like these...

The focus is "less is more", "quality over quantity". Columbia needed a music man to make these decisions just like a top restaraunt needs a great chef. A leaner more profit focused Columbia could maybe just survive the onslaught until the calvary comes...
Old 5th September 2007
  #18
Rick is not going to change anything unless a new model is used. Bottom line is this: are you willing to pay $17.99 for a ****ty sounding CD, all compressed to hell with maybe one or two songs you want to hear?

The answer is no. Not when you can get a DVD of your fav movie that has all kinds of extra stuff in it for $12.99 or less.

When CD's were released in '82 they cost $12.99 against the vinyl $5.99 records.

The record companies said this was due to the extra expense of production. They also promised the price of CD's would drop significantly when production was ramped up. Well, they didn't. The record companies made all sorts of money ripping off the customers until they got a burner and said no thanks.

Now, if they want to fix this, it's a simple matter of offering a fair product at a fair price. First, stop the compressed to **** mastering. Yes, we all say we hate it and then the next thing you do is ask the mastering guy to turn it up. We are the cause and we are the solution, just say no!

Next, those dinosaur record companies should get real and price the product fairly.
This means charging $5 for a CD. This still offers a good profit ratio and the artists still get paid. CD production costs are at an all time low, pass along the savings like any other company would do.

If CD's were five bucks, I would maybe start to buy a few, as long as some sort of return policy is given as these are the only products you buy without an audition. That of course would have to be monitored so the rip-off guys that buy and burn would not be able to return more than a fixed number of releases.

If Rick is reading, I suggest he give this a go, after all, he's not selling anything now, what's there to lose except more market share? The first major record company that discounts the catalog to five bucks will start a price war like in the airline biz, soon they all will have to drop prices to compete.

They compete, we win.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades
Old 5th September 2007
  #19
Lives for gear
 

Creating art and pick pocketing people of their hard earned money are completely two different skill sets.

One thing to get straight is that for the most part, the businessman takes advantage of a market that exists. They usually don't create the market from scratch - they just take it to the next level. They capitalize on trends, technological advancements etc.

The problem as I see it is quite deep.

1. From the grassroots live entertainment is not the social "center of the universe" or draw that it once was.

2. Store front distribution is all but gone. A big part of sales is the emotional purchase. The packaging and enviroment affects this immensly. Imagine if Victoria's Secret was just a generic section in Walmart - it would be a no go. OTOH the book industry has turned the sale of books into an experience.

3. The internet is unregulated and out of control. Without government intervention or some unforseen technological advancement, digital property and product is simply wide open to theft deeming it "valueless".

4. Twenty-five years of no format advancement in digital technology is suicide to a product. I mean seriously - a CD? Still? And we sit here and wonder why no one is buying them...

So IMO, get these things straight and let the artists compete with their art and let the consumers pick the winner. But right now we're trying to sell fresh air and no one is buying - I don't think the answer is marketing "fresher" air.
Old 5th September 2007
  #20
84K
Lives for gear
 
84K's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Williams View Post
Rick is not going to change anything unless a new model is used. Bottom line is this: are you willing to pay $17.99 for a ****ty sounding CD, all compressed to hell with maybe one or two songs you want to hear?
Funny how you list the over-compression "****ty sounding" aspect before the importance of the songs/music.

That is the gearslutz plague. tutt
Old 5th September 2007
  #21
Lives for gear
 
sahiaman's Avatar
 

We just don't buy music, we buy statements. Who is making a statement these days?

The music industry is stale right now because none of us have anything important to say, not even the big super bands of yesterday.


And why do labels stop pushing old music on todays market? What if we started to see led zep videos on tv once again, or nirvana on the hit clear channel radio stations? I bet the new generation will go out and seek the music they have been over looking.
Old 5th September 2007
  #22
84K
Lives for gear
 
84K's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by sahiaman View Post
We just don't buy music, we buy statements. Who is making a statement these days?

With the war, and all the other nonsense in the world today, they are plenty of subject matters for artist to write about.
Old 5th September 2007
  #23
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by quietdrive View Post
But I dont see some old fart changing this industry. We need some young guys, who UNDERSTAND how the fans think. T
Well, I'm 25 and I don't even know what kids are thinking these days.
Old 5th September 2007
  #24
Lives for gear
 
Tom Hakala's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosby View Post
Well, I'm 25 and I don't even know what kids are thinking these days.
yeah. I'm 25 also and I have no frigging idea...

I have been here, sitting with my laptop, reply to thread window open.. thinking for 10 minutes what to write... i think i have something to say, maybe i don't.. and, i dont know why, but the name that's been bumping onto my mind within the 10 minutes has been Sufjan Stevens. And Alice In Chains.

Well I better go to bed.. it's 2am again.
Old 6th September 2007
  #25
Lives for gear
 
jmikeperkins's Avatar
Since Rick claims to know nothing about gear, its ironic to discuss him on Gearslutz. I don't like everything he has done, but at least he puts the music first and his heart seems to be in the right place.

J. Mike Perkins
jmikeperkins.com myspace.com/jmikeperkins
Old 6th September 2007
  #26
Lives for gear
 

Again Lefsetz finds the right words...

Quote:
I don't get it. If kids aren't listening to radio and MTV plays no music and CDs are dying, what exactly does an act need a major label FOR?



They want a percentage of touring revenue. But what are they giving up in return?



Cash?



So, you need to give up a huge chunk of your upside so that execs can blow it as they play hedge fund wannabes?



Credit hitsdailydouble, but did you READ Austin Scaggs' bit on Lyor Cohen? (Rolling Stone : Smoking Section: Jack Johnson, Vampire Weekend and James Blunt) If what I'm getting for giving up so much of my income is the ability for you to hype the scion of a has-been rocker by giving him the keys to the castle for the weekend, COUNT ME OUT! There are better ways to spend money. Like taking care of your EMPLOYEES instead of having them constantly walking on hot coals, believing they're gonna be fired any minute.



Look at the major labels... The A&R is being done by lawyers. These same lawyers and independent contractors could feed someone else with money. Someone more in touch with TODAY! Who wouldn't blow all their income and deliver meager results.



Who says the major labels have to be in control of music in the future? Isn't this like saying GM should rule the auto world? After making inefficient SUVs and being trumped by the Japanese? The Japanese companies made cars that didn't break, with good gas mileage. Instead of focusing on the bells and whistles, they put all their energy into substance. How the car actually drove. Isn't it funny that Toyota is poised to be the biggest car company in the world?



Don't ask what can be done to save the major labels, ask what they can do for YOU! And reading the Rick Rubin article, it appears very little.



Want to sell your music online and get paid? You don't need the major label, you can use Tunecore, the Orchard or CDBaby. And make MORE!



Want to get on the radio? Well, do you make the kind of music that's PLAYED on the radio? If you're a no-talent wannabe, who needs publicity to get noticed as you sell singles and never generate any touring income, the major label is FOR YOU! Out of touch, generating heat in the dying world of mainstream media. But, if you're anything but a Top Forty popster, you can't GET ON THE RADIO! Not in any way that generates significant returns. And is it worth paying the labels for the slot? You can use indies, who will gain in power as the majors decline, or admit to yourself that NO station will ever play your music and save your cash.



Or maybe you need the label's ONLINE STREET TEAM!



Do you send money to Africans? Do you buy penny stocks on the advice of strangers? Are you a ****ING IDIOT? ANYBODY can tell when they're being hyped. Our **** detectors are BUILT IN! Sure, word of mouth is king, but from people we TRUST! Not the paid hypester who enters our forum and tries to sell us on a new act in such a bogus moonie manner that even a child knows the jig is up. Did anyone say SPAM?



I'm still trying to figure out what the major label gives your average credible act. Want to use Rick Rubin to produce your record? You don't even need to be SIGNED to Columbia, his deal's not exclusive. Come to him with the cash and a story and you can use him too, without giving up all the ancillary bull****.



Want to get in a commercial, on "Grey's Anatomy"? You don't need a major for that either. Indies have entered the field, and a lot of these shows want HIP acts, which means NOT ON A MAJOR LABEL!



If you're looking for easy answers, maybe you're tempted by the major label deal. But really, it's like joining a cult. Giving up all control to an out of touch entity who tells you how to act. It's scarier to forge your own way. But it's the only true way out of the wilderness.



The old guard is stumped. If radio is dead and MTV doesn't play any music and you can't hype ****, HOW WILL THEY BE SUCCESSFUL?



Do you want to put your career in the hands of THESE people? So out of touch? Jim Guerinot fought with Columbia to give away an Offspring track online seven years ago. Now, finally, in 2007, Columbia allows Springsteen to give away "Radio Nowhere". So who's smarter here? Jim or the Columbia brass? Who should you trust?



You need a quarterback who's not guaranteed a salary, but a manager, who's HUNGRY! Whose livelihood DEPENDS on your success. Someone who doesn't manage EVERYONE who NEEDS you to hit. That's motivation for you.



What's Lyor Cohen's motivation? Hell, he's seen enough hit records. He's rich enough. He wants to go to the society ball. Russell Simmons is a self-help guru. They've all jumped the shark, to use a burned-out expression.



You need HUNGRY people. Who don't want to take most of your upside with only a PROMISE in return. People who can see the new world. Not labels who don't even let you OWN your music and tell you how to make it and what you can do with it.
Old 6th September 2007
  #27
Gear Maniac
 

The only message I took away from this article is that labels are beginning to acknowledge that their content needs to improve. I think this is a positive thing.

The good old days of making easy money are over. No one can reverse this. I sure wouldn't want to invest in a record label right now.
Old 6th September 2007
  #28
Lives for gear
 
Watersound's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by noiseflaw View Post
They may try to start taking monies out of merchandising and tour income from the artists.
They have already begun to do that.
Old 6th September 2007
  #29
Lives for gear
 
allencollins's Avatar
 

Rick Rubin's records sell millions of copies and they all sound like crap. I think his greatest contribution to music is that he lowered the standards on production.

Now any simpleton with a peavy mixer and a rode mic can produce a radio worthy record thanks to Rick. It seems like the worse your record sounds these days the more 'Vibe' it has mostly thanks to Rubin. It's pathetic really. If it wasn't for rick we wouldnt have such wonderfully produced records like the White Stripes. He may not have produced it but he may have inspired it.
Old 6th September 2007
  #30
Lives for gear
 

This whole thing numbs my mind.

There's no money in digital music because it's available for free. Yet we keep pumping these digital files out and complain that there's no money in it.

How ****en obtuse can you/we be??? Shut it ****en off already!

It doesn't matter how good or bad the content is...FREE IS FREE. And the more free it gets, the worse the content. You cannot sustain good content if there's no money in it - no way.

Let me remind you guys how important music is to society. Imagine a restaurant or bar without music. Imagine a movie, a wedding, a sporting event, a highschool graduation, or just a party in your back yard. Music is so much a part of our daily life that it is taken for granted. This means that there is power in the industry, and the market is huge....really huge. To say there's no interest is just plain stupid.

It's asinine to say the genie is out of the bottle and throw your hands in the air. When has technology ever stood still? Hasn't anyone learned anything in the last 20 years - what seems inevitable today is barely a memory tommorow.

I think the labels should make any deal possible to make money with this format because it will die. And while they squeeze the last pennies out of it they should be working hard (and together) to create a proprietary system and a new playback format that protects content. Once in place, they should drop any format that is wide open to piracy & duplication.

I'm telling you guys, music is really really imprortant and the industry has to start acting that way and play tough instead of playing the victim.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
cynic one / Rap + Hip Hop engineering and production
36
Jetblack / So much gear, so little time
52
AdamLazlo / Gear free zone - shoot the breeze
54
thenoodle / So much gear, so little time
33

Forum Jump
Forum Jump