Comments on: rick rubin, music man, the backlash

By: John

John — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 01:17:09 +0000

I have to disagree about people not wanting the subscription model. I’m a huge lover of music and have friends around the country that are the same. For them to be able to say “have you checked out Boris?” and have the ability to log onto Rhapsody and crank Smile up through my speakers is fantastic. Fuck iTunes. I don’t want to buy singles or entire albums that way, I wanna spark up a joint in my basement and turn on Rhapsody and listen to an album front to back. Then if the reccomendation says “people who like The Church like…” I might give it a try. If I’m feeling nostalgic for some old Ronnie Milsap cause mamma raised me on it, well I can spin an album from Rhapsody that way also. Steve Jobs doesn’t get shit about the music industry or what constitutes great music. He does however get that people want convienience and ease of use and he has delivered. But these times of listening to what the artist considers a piece of work front to back are dying and I understand that but I still dig it. Charging by the song is new wine in an old bottle akin to the single. Rhapsody may not be the future but the subscription model is by far the best in my book right now. When you can logon and set up your playlist in advance of taking that two hour ride down to P-town and hop in your car and turn on your satellite connected Rhapsody, I’ll be enjoying that as well.

By: Dave Allen

Dave Allen — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:55:07 +0000

[Posted by Nick - music@cincan.org]

[This might drift slightly off topic]

I’m curious as to how someone like Steve Albini or the guys over at Negativland are weighing in on this . I’m sure everyone remembers Steve’s essay on “The Problem With Music”: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

The somewhat recent re-focusing on the dying Dinosaur sounds very similar to the big conversation and controversy that went on back in 1999/2000. Back then, there was a lot of false hope about change, followed by disappointment when tech companies decided to just “work” (read: “sleep”) with the then “Big 5″. Things these days seem much more real in terms of the ‘end of the Industry’ as it exists now. The transformation of the web and a new generation of somewhat “informed” web-savvy users/music lovers has really opened up the possibility for things to change.

Nevertheless, if the entire model for the industry were to change tomorrow there would be a large catalog of music up through now that would still be tied up in copyright law and held hostage by the likes of the RIAA. Maybe aim should again be taken at the good old RIAA, all of the cronies associated with them and the current state copyright law, not to mention DRM and it’s co-conspirators….no, wait - that’s crazy talk…

…yeah…I’ll lay off the coffee for the rest of the day :)

By: Dave Allen

Dave Allen — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:16:32 +0000

Yes, good point. But I’ve never seen Rubin as a self-promoter really. His reknown has come from his ability to spot the talent and then spot the best songs - as the article pointed out. Turning Columbia around will be like plugging the hole on the Titanic as it was going down I’m afraid…..also in related news keep an eye on what’s happening over at the newly-privatized EMI Records.

By: Justin

Justin — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 14:05:39 +0000

To interject my pessemism again… I think the real question is “Why did Columbia embark on a press campaign to let consumers know that Rubin would be working for them and trying to “turn them around’.”

It may be that Rubin has already served his primary function for Columbia: making them look flexible, new, and anti-corporate establishment. If Rubin, buddhism aside, is a self-promoter who has always courted the musical mainstream. Thats why he’s working for Columbia.

By: Dave Allen

Dave Allen — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:58:12 +0000

The question of course will always be “why did Rubin think he could turn Columbia around?” Maybe he will maybe he won’t…

By: jragel

jragel — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:30:06 +0000

I don’t get the subscription model—if one were to possess a portable device capable of delivering on-demand services they could easily log onto one of the many decent internet sites and get music for ‘free’. Otherwise, the device would have to follow a model similar to satellite radio—yes?—and how’s biz for that concept going?

As for the man: I can think of few producers with more credibility in the bank then Rubin. Regardless of his recent work, his impressive resume as a pioneer of hip hop production makes him hall of fame worthy. I’m surprised by the lack of respect shown—when was the last time George Martin produced anything great? And yet he is viewed as one of the best producers of all time—and rightfully so! I hardly think Rubin should be penalized for continuing to work in his field. His legacy as a producer is secure regardless of what he does as an executive.

By: Dave Allen

Dave Allen — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:58:45 +0000

Kyra, I feel that he’ll need more than luck. The old guard are probably licking their lips this morning if they’ve been following the thread through to the letters page yesterday. My position is that I believe Rubin is wrong when he talks about subscription models - they may work for an upper demo but definitely don’t work for the younger kids who simply have access to music all of the time and don’t need to own music like past generations did. Take the iPhone and iPod Touch…wi-fi enabled which on first blush seems like a smart Apple idea to drive listeners to the Apple online store. yes for sure, but it also means you can sit and listen to all the cool streaming music sites on the web and not have to pay for the music….

By: Roy Christopher

Roy Christopher — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:40:52 +0000

I don’t know much about his business savvy or his plan at Columbia (I haven’t read the NYT profile), but Rick Rubin is still a brilliant producer with an intimidating body of work (Justin, you didn’t like the Billy Squire sample in his “99 Problems” cover with Jay-Z?!? Effing brilliant!).

Richard Cook’s comment about “really great music” says it all. Or, as Doug Stanhope puts it, have you ever seen illegal drugs advertised? No. You don’t have to. A good product sells regardless.