That's at least what music guru Rick Rubin says at least. Rubin has been contracted by Sony to essentially save the music industry.
Save it from who? From itself of course.
Gone, seemingly overnight, are the days that the music industry can just muscle through poor music to the masses. Radio is losing listenership. Retailers are losing customers. And MTV... well, MTV stopped being about "music' a long time ago.
The problem, which was reaffirmed by a focus group of digital-savvy college students, is all explained in a nutshell here:
"The kids [from the focus group] all said that a) no one listens to the radio anymore, b) they mostly steal music, but they don't consider it stealing, and c) they get most of their music from iTunes on their iPod. They told us that MySpace is over, it's just not cool anymore; Facebook is still cool, but that might not last much longer; and the biggest thing in their life is word of mouth. That's how they hear about music, bands, everything."
The solution, in Rubin's mind, for saving the music industry - is a subscription service:
"To combat the devastating impact of file sharing, [Rick Rubin], like others in the music business (Doug Morris and Jimmy Iovine at Universal, for instance), says that the future of the industry is a subscription model, much like paid cable on a television set. 'You would subscribe to music,' Rubin explained, as he settled on the velvet couch in his library. 'You'd pay, say, $19.95 a month, and the music will come anywhere you'd like. In this new world, there will be a virtual library that will be accessible from your car, from your cellphone, from your computer, from your television. Anywhere.'"
But... that it already exists: in satellite radio. Unfortunately, the music industry is still stuck in trying to salvage the previous model, and too busy fighting innovators rather than working with them.
It's not that I disagree with Rubin. I believe he's right, and satellite radio is well on its way to become the "anywhere" solution people need (there's some critical missing gaps, but that's a whole separate article). But by the time the music industry realizes it... it could be too late.
[New York Times]
(A long read, but well worth it.)
I kind of agree here.
And to throw another wrench in the works, I can't fully understand in today's day and age, why there is still a need for the record company "middle man".
Bands (should) have the power to sell to the public directly, through internet, SDARS, WiFi, cell phones, and other subsription services. They can generate their own interest and sales.....and you know what? They will compete with each other directly so they will produce better music that people will be WILLING to pay for (artists get paid directly with no contracts or middlemen stealing some of it away)!
It's a win-win situation.
I would hate to offend anybody, but I guess I'm one of those people who "steals music but doesn't consider it stealing." You see, I'm in Canada, and my entire country doesn't consider it a crime because it's no different from recording a show off your TV set and watching it later. The technology may have gotten better, but unless I start selling what I download, the situation is inherently the same. American laws are very similar, but it seems the US government is just more vulnerable to lobbyists.
On a moral level, I don't feel there's anything wrong with it either. These recordings are easily reproduced without cost or limit. Before records became affordable, most of the public only heard music for free on the radio anyways. Musicians should make money from performances, and historically they have, only labels benefit from album sales in any real way. I'm sorry, their "talents" simply aren't that rare or valuable that they even deserve to be paid time after time for fifty years for some recording they did once.
If this is the "end" of millionaire pop stars, good! We should be idealizing more valuable skills anyways.
I pay for Sirius month to month because of Howard and (recently) Jim Breuer (spelling?), and I consider that analogous to my above comments because I want to hear them live every day.
May Sony, EMI, Clearchannel-style mass market radio and pop music all collapse in the hole they dug with years of substandard product and die.
I think Rick is talking about Rhapsody type service, more than XM, Ryan. I can access Rhapsody everywhere I have a computer with internet access and with the increasing bandwidth of mobile devices, it's only a matter of time before Rick's vision is realized. In the meantime there are plenty of portables that can sync with a user's service, for a fee of course. Between Rhapsody and XM I have my music bases covered.
I have to admit, I do miss the music store experience of digging through bins for an obscure import, or hearing a band you never would have otherwise because an employee brought in a personal CD to play on the speakers.
I think Rick is talking about Rhapsody type service, more than XM, Ryan. I can access Rhapsody everywhere I have a computer with internet access and with the increasing bandwidth of mobile devices, it's only a matter of time before Rick's vision is realized. In the meantime there are plenty of portables that can sync with a user's service, for a fee of course. Between Rhapsody and XM I have my music bases covered.
I have to admit, I do miss the music store experience of digging through bins for an obscure import, or hearing a band you never would have otherwise because an employee brought in a personal CD to play on the speakers.
>>>>>>> On a moral level, I don't feel there's anything wrong with it either. These recordings are easily reproduced without cost or limit. Before records became affordable, most of the public only heard music for free on the radio anyways.
So, is it fair to assume that you think stealing computer software, movies, proprietary data and anything else in digital form is acceptable as well? And if it is okay to steal those things, why not just make it okay to steal money from a billionaire? After all, he has plenty of money and probably doesn't deserve it, right?
I sincerely hope you aren't raising children with this bizarre outlook on other people's property.
With respect to Martin, it IS stealing and always was, in a way. P2P has just made it very efficient. As far the hated "labels" are concerned, don't forget several artists have, today and in the past, started their own labels. There was a retrospective on the great Sam Cooke, and he was way ahead of his time starting SAR records.
And music on the radio is not "free," which is an odd statement from a satrad subscriber-the advertising pays not only for the music, but the cost of powering and delivering the signal.
Nothing is free, and if someone works for free, that is called "slavery."
Sorry.
With respect to Martin, it IS stealing and always was, in a way. P2P has just made it very efficient. As far the hated "labels" are concerned, don't forget several artists have, today and in the past, started their own labels. There was a retrospective on the great Sam Cooke, and he was way ahead of his time starting SAR records.
And music on the radio is not "free," which is an odd statement from a satrad subscriber-the advertising pays not only for the music, but the cost of powering and delivering the signal.
Nothing is free, and if someone works for free, that is called "slavery."
Sorry.
Guys, I come from an entire country whose very government has debated this subject and ruled exactly the same way as me. Now if I wanted to sell this music, that would be a crime, but recording or downloading something for my own use it morally and legally fine. It's no different from recording off TV to watch a show later. The only difference is that your country and it's politicians are very, very amenable to lobbyists. You're all spewing their whining.
Music isn't terribly valuable. Recordings of performances aren't tangible in any real way and broadcast for free on the radio anyways. Oddly enough, if I were listening to the radio and recording it on a tape deck, it would be legal, but somebody recording to an MP3 is profoundly evil.
Seriously, think about that.
Personally, I do resent musicians because, as a society, we've been idolizing people with fairly common talent and hurling disgusting amounts of money at them. Imagine, somebody makes a noise that expires easier than smoke in there, and that's somehow meant to pay him residuals until after he's been dead for 50 years. Come of it, let's focus on skills that give use some kind of useful return. If a musician puts on a concert, okay, but fuck their recordings. The fact that it's so easy to undermine this "industry" indicates how questionable the whole thing was in the first place.
So, to reply, you can't be a slave if you aren't really doing anything.