Dear Rick Rubin (or Somebody): Why Not Surf the "Velocity of Music?"

Posted September 5, 2007 | 08:16 PM (EST)



stumbleupon :Dear Rick Rubin (or Somebody):  Why Not Surf the "Velocity of Music?"   digg: Dear Rick Rubin (or Somebody):  Why Not Surf the "Velocity of Music?"   reddit: Dear Rick Rubin (or Somebody):  Why Not Surf the "Velocity of Music?"   del.icio.us: Dear Rick Rubin (or Somebody):  Why Not Surf the "Velocity of Music?"

Last week's New York Times profile of Rick Rubin has a lot of people talking. Some agree that Rubin, a great producer, has it in him to revolutionize the music biz. Others are more skeptical, including those who make a specialty out of skepticism. The question has two parts: 1) Can anybody save the music business? 2) If so, can Rick Rubin?

Then there's the implicit question: If by the "the music business" we mean the matrix of corporations that distribute recorded music today, should it be saved?

I think Rick Rubin's in a good position to change things, in part because of the "meta-message" that his biography sends: He's a producer - the kind that's an artist in his own right. He's a nurturer and admirer of artists. He's spiritual (that's important.) He's unconventional. And he loves music.

But, is he the right guy? Can he get the job done? Should Columbia and the other big companies be saved? I have no idea - but here's what somebody ought to try to do for the music business - and more importantly, for music:

1) Create a Mission Statement for the music industry,
2) convene a Brain Trust of the best minds he or she can find, and
3) understand and surf "the velocity of music."

Mission Statement

Nobody is asking the most fundamental question of all: What do we want "the music industry" to do? What are its goals, its reasons for being? Here's my answer, my suggested mission statement:

To enrich and bring joy to as many people as possible, with as little cost and effort as possible, while at the same time allowing those who create and distribute music to make a good living.

I don't care what the rest of it looks like. It's better not to care. That creates a good starting place for imagining what the rest of it should look like.

Some people are saying all music should be free, all the time. My answer to that is, who will write and make that free music? The last time I wrote about this topic somebody wrote me an email that went more or less like this: "F#&^ recorded music. I gig live and I make pretty good money."

Turns out he was in a Led Zeppelin tribute band.

I'm looking for a world where people can still earn a living writing great songs, recording original material, or creating art using technology-and-the-studio as an instrument. (Think Pet Sounds-era Brian Wilson, or for that matter the early Rick Rubin.) None of those art forms will survive, except in amateur form, if things keep going the way they are.

Operating Principles

So, if we take my goals for America's Top Music Business Model (stole that phrase from the Writers' Guild newsletter - sorry), we can get to the following principles:

1. Music should be cheap. (No more 0.99 cents a download, much less $1.29 without DRM. I agree with Bob Lefsetz on that one. Greed kills - in this case it's killing the music industry.)
2. Music should be easy to acquire and use. No more copy protection. No more clumsy online music store interfaces. Whenever and wherever you want it - cell phone, car, etc. - you should have it, with minimal-to-no effort.
3. Music should be fun to acquire and use. Being 13 years old in 1966 and going to Doubleday's in New York City to hear Between the Buttons for the first time was fun. Hearing a random excerpt from a song in iTunes - usually not the part with the hook - is much easier. But it's frustrating and annoying.
4. There need to be avenues for hearing the music you don't know you're going to love. I've written about this before, and said we need online guides who can lead us to the music we love. Dylan is one, with his Sirius radio show (which is why the RIAA was foolish to oppose this device, which could have sold a lot of music for them.) Ultragrrl's another. So are the best DJs.

So how does Rick Rubin (or somebody) take advantage of the Velocity of Music, nurture more online guides to spread the word about good music, and develop a good revenue stream?

Convene a Brain Trust

The advice I'd give Rick Rubin or any record exec is the same I'd give a Presidential candidate dealing with national security issues (not that either of them has asked me, come to think of it): find the smartest people you can, give them a direction, and go at it. It worked for Roosevelt in the Depression - and, believe me, the music industry is in a depression.

So who should be in the Brain Trust? No record company execs, please. Artists, managers, producers, computing and AI wizards, economists, poets - pretty much everybody mentioned in the spoken part of the Donovan song "Atlantis," plus anybody that gets namechecked in a William Gibson novel.

The Velocity of Music

The Velocity of Money is the term economists use to describe the number of times the same dollar is spent over a given period of time. If $100 goes to one person and she keeps it, that's $100 in transactions. If she give it to someone to provide a service, and they buy something with it, then $300 has been spent. Three people, not one, have each received $100. That's three times the velocity that the $100 would have had if she'd kept it to herself.

(I'm grossly oversimplifying. The Velocity of Money is actually defined as

2007-09-05-velocityofmoney.png

- but I digress.)

The Velocity of Music is my phrase for what happens whenever somebody else acquires a piece of recorded music. Music's "velocity" has never been higher, thanks to the Internet and file sharing, but nobody's figured out a way to make money from that velocity - yet.

Here's a model worth kicking around: First the Internet, radio, and other communication technologies will allow you to locate somebody you trust - the equivalent of the guy who owned that corner record shop in Brooklyn in the 1950's, or the Rolling Stones in the 60's (I found a lot of great artists just by looking to see who'd written the songs on December's Children.) Or, for that matter, Dylan and his radio show. (He played "Operator" by Sister Wynonna Carr. I love that song.)

They're the real-time evangelists for music, both new and old. In the New Musical Order, they should also become its distributors, its "virtual retailers." Which gets us to this: New distribution technologies should enable them sell the music they love and promote, for a few pennies per song. Split the pennies with them, and make sure the lion's share of what you (the record company) receive goes to make more music.

It's more important to keep that Velocity of Music going, to create a wave of enthusiasm and ride it, than it is to milk every transaction for as much as you can get. That means doing more than just trying to find the next Britney, or Christina, or whomever. Mine those back catalogs, the ones that are bought and paid for, and find virtual retailer channels for selling it.

The Architecture of It All

I've drawn the charts in my head and they look like this. (What, you can't see them? They're right there.) If I were skilled enough, there would be a graphic here that would show a music fan on the left. In the middle would be "virtual retailers" using digital music sales platforms (like websites, online stores, digital purchasing devices, add-ons to iPod-like devices, etc.) Underneath the virtual retailers would be music businesses that find and record artists, develop the technology, and support the retailers. On the right would be the artists themselves (with a dotted line to the music businesses.)

But I'm getting ahead of myself. Someone needs to convene a Brain Trust and let them design a working model. That might consist of my design, or of the subscription model Rick Rubin talks about in the article.Anything's fine with me - as long as somebody figures out how to keep the music coming.

The subscription model Rick mentions ($19.95 for all the music you'll ever want) is based on the work of Gerd Leonhard and his idea of "Music Like Water," that would be available in unlimited amounts for a monthly fee. That would require a back-end technology to divide the money back to companies and artists based on usage, but that's a simple task in tech terms.

There are also intermediate steps, like a subscription service for Columbia product only, that an individual exec like Rick Rubin could explore without bringing in his peers. But to make that fly, Columbia would have to throw in a lot of exciting extras to make people sign up. Not impossible - but it needs a Brain Trust to design it.

Lastly, here's a heretical thought: The CD is not dead. It's just not the cornerstone of the business anymore. If CD packaging becomes more like a coffee-table book, people will buy the occasional CD as a luxury item. It won't dominate the industry anymore, but it will always have a place. I'll bet good money on that.

There's more to discuss - like when, where, how, and if record companies should take a percentage of merchandising sales (I say "yes" - but only if it's a sale the artist couldn't have made on their own, and even then only for a reasonable percentage. If the recording company is finding new revenue from the artist, not looting the revenue they've already got, it's a win for everybody. But that means finding new ways to sell merchandise - hello, Brain Trust?)

Will somebody fix the music industry? Will the dinosaurs that dominate it today somehow learn to walk upright? I don't know - but if they don't, I hope somebody else comes along to build the model of the future. Whether it's Immortal Technique or the Blue Sky Boys, I like to think that I'll be able to find and hear the music I love for the rest of my life - and that the people who make it available can survive economically so that it keeps coming.


A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
Future-While-U-Wait
RJ Eskow at the Huffington Post

___________________________________________________

UPDATE: Turns out that fellow HuffPo'er Tony Sachs, while more of a skeptic on Rubin, pretty much agrees with me about CDs. He's skeptical about an all-industry subscription service, too - although my answer is for each company go it alone, at least for now. I used to haunt Tony's store, NYCD, when it was in physical and not virtual space. He's a good example of the "virtual retailers" the record companies should promote with tech and other resources. Check out what he wrote.

(But, Tony - Clive Davis?)

Comments for this post are now closed

 
 

Comments
22
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)
- curiousasheck See Profile I'm a Fan of curiousasheck permalink

It all comes down to quality. Look at the Dixie Chicks. Even people who hate paying for music bought their CD because the Chicks stood for something they felt was important. And the album was excellent as well they discovered. The Chicks were also generous with their use of the Internet with free content. Everyone wins.

The bottom line is, there is to much crap being churned out by the record companies. The 90's entertainment bubble has already popped.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:55 AM on 09/10/2007
- jeskiley See Profile I'm a Fan of jeskiley permalink

You are a great thinker, and architect. Lemme know if you ever get around to developing computer software for children, to teach them about classical music and its composers, leading up to what's influenced the musicians of today. Maybe get Justin Timberlake promoting his belief, "Music is nothing but Math". Thanks!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:33 PM on 09/09/2007
- BlackJAC See Profile I'm a Fan of BlackJAC permalink

Ninety-nine cents a download isn't "cheap?" It's the best fracking deal in music today! The only people who can get away with saying that paying a dollar for something is usurious live in Russia, where people make $100 a *month.* This is just another example of the Napsterites erroneously believing that they're owed something for their years of patronage when they could've been talking to girls.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:59 PM on 09/06/2007
- bloogle See Profile I'm a Fan of bloogle permalink

There's already a huge underground of music that's off the grid. It's been said many times (and it's true) that a Dylan or a Hendrix would never make it today. Such artists still exist, but in a marginalized form: in the underground.

This isn't so bad, since the music biz has defiled the very concept of music so badly and made it policy to rip off artists and fans in every way imaginable. The music biz deserves to die. Music will be better off without it. Plenty of artists set up their own tours, put out their own records and break even. This is about as good as it gets in music these days. So what if it's not convenient for casual listeners?

It's like news: if you want real news you don't go to Faux news because it's pure garbage. Same with labels: if you want real music you don't go to major labels because they put out nothing but trash. Serious fans have known this for years...

What other potsers say is true - give it away: music wants to be free. Bye Bye music biz and good riddance!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:44 PM on 09/06/2007
- TheQuestion See Profile I'm a Fan of TheQuestion permalink

I've said it before but it's a simple way to get people interested in new music while in the music store. Put a short description of the type of music on the box.

When I go into the music store and see a thousand titles and have no idea what's in the box. I don't buy anything. Sure it's a small step - but it is at least a step in the right direction.

The appropriate label for Rap by the way would be "CRAP". No wonder the music business is in trouble. You only need one CD if that's what you like to listen to.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:23 PM on 09/06/2007
- InofTouch See Profile I'm a Fan of InofTouch permalink

It seem weird were look for something that defines this era and so far it mostly technological but it is a vast improvement from past ago. It seem were moving away from buying albums either by store or online and just purchase singles and as well as trying to look for something to match the past like the 60's but do we have anyone right now that like that that define the era....Just Steve Jobs

Still what mainly different is that it mix right now and I think it going to be like this...So much mixing either genres or artist that are not describe as a rocker or rapper and as well as expansion of musicians from other countries. It not like in the past where it easily classifies like boy bands and hair metal¦that was the music business model.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:45 PM on 09/06/2007
- SidFishes See Profile I'm a Fan of SidFishes permalink

If anyone can fix the music business, it's probably Rick Rubin.

That said, music wants to be free.

http://musicthing.org

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:59 AM on 09/06/2007
- JustN See Profile I'm a Fan of JustN permalink

I am shocked that everybody's answer to the crys and whines of the music industry is to make everything cheaper. 99 cents is too much too ask per song? I'm sure any of you wouldn't think twice about giving a drunken bum on the street a dollar, but you wouldn't pay the industry a dollar per track? The artist would get 60 cents or less for that and these monthly fee services sound like they cut the bottom line even more.....

The answer isn't price it's quanity. Which is quality in this situation. If the graph paper brained geniuses in the Music Biz want more money, offer more choices. Putting their all of their eggs in the basket of someone like Britney or all of the cookie cutter Rap dinks is wasteful. Give us all a chance, this country is the most fractured and compartmentized place on Earth. There is a market for everyone. The Clear Channel/Monthly Fee Music Service model will kill the business, not save it.

Typical of all humans, you all are only thinking of yourselves, not your precious "artists."

Just N
If you want to listen to something for free, browse the artists on Myspace, like me.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:58 AM on 09/06/2007
- misterstudebaker See Profile I'm a Fan of misterstudebaker permalink

part 2

I say this:

1. If you're an artist, GIVE IT AWAY. The job of an amateur musician is to do music. The job of a professional musician is to do business. There's a big difference. GIVE IT AWAY. Smash the system that oppresses you. DON'T PARTICIPATE.

2. If you're a consumer - download as much of it as you can. Break the system. FORCE them to abandon the industrial mode of musical production.

3. Whether you are a "musician" or not - spend time listening to live music. THAT WHERE IT COUNTS. Not the hyper-compressed crap coming out of your iPod - that's ephemera. LIVE music is REAL music - it comes from an embodied consciousness through an instrument to you, directly.

4. Musicians: WRITE IT DOWN. Print your music as scores - make it into a pdf and let people download it, and get people to PLAY IT. If you can't write your music down, then don't expect people to ever remember it.

What I describe above is a recipe for the Real Future of Music - locally grown, locally consumed, internationally distributed for free with an eye toward posterity and the reintegration of live, real, music into common daily experience.

The "Music Industry" can rot for all I care.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:18 AM on 09/06/2007
- misterstudebaker See Profile I'm a Fan of misterstudebaker permalink

Mr Eskow:

The Music Industry HAD A CHANCE to put a meter on P2P. It was called NAPSTER. Yes, THAT Napster - the old "give it to me for free" Napster. I should know, I was working on the BILLING CLIENT.

The plan? pay a monthly fee of $X. Every time you download (DL) a file, your account would get dinged (x)cents. If your account runs out of cash, wire more into it with your VISA or ATM card. It was all going to be handled via CHASE. We tested it, it WORKED. We proposed something like 10 cents a DL, with Napster getting 3 and the "rights holder" getting 7.

The music industry said "NO".

The point is: THEY HAD A CHANCE, THEY BLEW IT.

The music industry can go f**k itself as far as I am concerned. Every rock / rap / pop wannabe can starve, or go get a real job, as far as I am concerned. How many brilliant avant-garde composers make a living off the record industry? None. How many incredible barbershop quartet artists, or medievalists, or avant-electronic noise people make a living from the record industry? Almost none. So why is pop / rap / pop privileged? Because every knuckle dragging moron wants to shag to the latest mating call? And then get old and look back and call it "their music"?

I think the music industry SHOULD devolve into amateur activity. I would suggest that the recording quality would go down, but the pinheads who consume the stuff wouldn't notice anyway, as the stuff is pumped through an LA2A turned up to 11, making it sound like a wooshing hellish mess anyway. People don't KNOW quality, and thy don't CARE about quality. They just want to be led to the latest social division based on song differences. Might as well be a bunch of pigeons.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:18 AM on 09/06/2007
- drblack See Profile I'm a Fan of drblack permalink

The one move that could have helped music was the internet radio station;but it was screwed by the new royalty rates that make internet radio pay a premium to play songs.
The good thing is that it may make internet radio focus on up and coming artists.
As a musician,songwriter,recordist, I feel these are some of the problems:
-though the price of beer etc has gone up the fee for a gig has remained flat for decades.
- the music industry wants insta hits...it doesn't help new artists develop.
-Mp3 quality is low especially with sample rates of less than 320kbs and with the loudness wars of overcompressed tracks music all sounds the same.
- WAY too much focus on looks instead of music ability.
-most of all...The music industry takes NO Chances.
The great thing is that digital (while still not up to analog soundwise...though it is almost there)has allowed any artist to make high reasonably high quality recordings and market them with very little money.
The only thing record companies have and hardly ever do anyway is the ability to market a song. Mc Donalds ,Wal-mart, etc could use their brand power to do the same thing.
Record companies should start to help talent develop.That is the only way they could still have a place in music.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:04 AM on 09/06/2007
- jaundicedview See Profile I'm a Fan of jaundicedview permalink

Thanks, RJ,
Slight quibble, Dylan in on XM. I like the idea of the upmarket CD, and let me push that a little further;
With all the computing power at the fingertips of so many people, decent digital studios abound, distribution networks are forming virally, so we may be in for a golden age of independently produced music. Except for existing music libraries, the music industry has virtually nothing to offer save greedy middlemen. They do, however have production capability...analog production capability. With every 'innovation' in sound format for the last couple decades has come a loss of sound quality. Perhaps the record industry can save itself by producing (gasp) analog recordings that actuually sound good!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:26 AM on 09/06/2007
- Brettster See Profile I'm a Fan of Brettster permalink

You remind me of another point that shouldn't be ignored. Music is having the shit compressed out of it these days, as executives more and more have no ear and just want masters to be "louder." In order to get that loudness of everything, music is compressed to one dense, narrow slab and then brought up to the max volume. The result: if you look at the music in an audio program, there are no nice, curvy waveforms, it's one big solid bar of static and you can hear it in the music. There's clipping everywhere, there's no room for any frequencies to breathe, there are zero dynamics.

It's a major problem now that no one talks about. It's not just a matter of analog vs digital equipment, this process is a BIG reason why old music really DOES sound better.

The industry needs to have people like Rick Rubin, who absolutely know what they're hearing and care about quality of music. To an untrained ear, louder is always assumed to be better, and when you get executives who don't know or care about this sort of thing, you get this pissing contest for volume and not for dynamic.

It's funny you mention Dylan too, because he's one of the few guys who have talked about this recently, actually.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:51 PM on 09/06/2007
- stupidme See Profile I'm a Fan of stupidme permalink

While this is all very interesting, "music," commercially speaking, is being driven by the systems that deliver the product. Until that beast is harnessed, there will be no "saving" the music business. The Steve Jobs of the world are more relevant than the Ric Rubins.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:11 AM on 09/06/2007
- gleonhard See Profile I'm a Fan of gleonhard permalink

Hi RJ, nice one! Thanks for referring to my book and mentioning me. I think you readers may enjoy my other writings on these issues, in particular my "Music Like Water Manifesto' at www.musiclikewater.net, and my "Open letter to the Independent Music Industry' at www.muserati.com which cover a lot of this stuff with more depth. Keep up the good work. Cheers, Gerd Leonhard (Music & Media Futurist)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:58 AM on 09/06/2007
- priorzola See Profile I'm a Fan of priorzola permalink

Pt 3 And finally, it must be noted with the additional post that is the likes of Nic Harcourt and other DJS at, often, publically-owned stations that the only music that is really seeing any major increases in sale (indie-rock music) is actively promoted. I first heard everyone from Cat Power to Arcade Fire to TV on the Radio first not on my local rock station or on MTV but on public radio. The RIAA and others need to acknowledge the important work that NPR and others are doing to provide Americans the opportunity to listen to the music that commercial radio left behind. At least a shout out at the Grammys would do.

The average listener of indie-rock is, often, a completist. Meaning they want the whole package. The want the liner notes and the artwork and expect a complete solid album, not just a couple singles with some filler (ie. what most pop albums have become). It's ridiculous for the RIAA to expect people to pay full price for a product that has been slapped together with little regard for quality and to ignore promoting the vast majority of music that is been put together with skill, intelligence, and integrity.

At the end of the day, the music industry has to adapt to new technologies and it will. People must be reminded that when the jukebox was invented there was such fear in the industry that it would put musicians out of business that musicians went on stike. In the end, the jukebox only allowed for more people to be exposed to music they wouldn't have normally been exposed to. The same has happened with MP3s. Now the industry needs to find a way to capitalize on this unique situation.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:24 AM on 09/06/2007
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in

Stock Quote

Enter a ticker symbol below:

Data provided by AOL



Bloggers Index›
Read All Posts by
RJ Eskow›