AfterDawn: News

Rick Rubin says music business model is 'done'

Recently appointed as co-chairman of Columbia Records, Rick Rubin, who has worked with the likes of Red Hot Chili Peppers, Beastie Boys and L.L. Cool J, had some words for the recording industry. In statements made in the New York Times, Rubin talks about the effects of iPods and digital music on the industry as a whole. "Columbia is stuck in the dark ages," Rubin told the Times.

"I have great confidence that we will have the best record company in the industry, but the reality is, in today's world, weti 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," he said.



An example of a model that he proposed was giving consumers access to music from cars, TV sets, cell phones or anything possible, for a monthly fee of around $20. So basically, Rubin is talking about a kind of "MP3 locker", a concept pushed for a long time by Michael Robertson's MP3Tunes (and past service MP3.com)

Rubin's suggestions would make music devices such as Apple's iPod obsolete as a main medium to enjoy music. The same arcle that quotes Rubin claims that Columbia is considering approaching artists for a cut of up to 50% of revenue from touring, merchandise and from the Internet. Performers have typically been allowed to keep revenue from touring and merchandise while the label gets the biggest cut of a CD sale.

The subscription-based service that Rubin seems to be proposing is something that consumers have already been offered in several forms and have largely ignored. The concept of "renting music" seems too alien for consumers it would appear.

Source:
News.com

Written by: James Delahunty @ 4 Sep 2007 20:24

• Previous article

• Sony releases PlayStation 3 1.92 update

• Next article

• New LG hybrid player adds features at a lower price

• 32 comments

• albino92

  I completely agree with him!

  4.9.2007 21:19 #1

• Ludikhris

  I don't like the idea of not "owning" the music. At least he is a man with a good idea. We need to get this wheel really rolling in order to get the industry back on track. I bet a rental type model would fight piracy the best but it would have to have the option to buy as well.
  
  Perhaps a sliding fixed vs variable cost per song.
  
  Package #1
  A monthly service for $15 that has virtually all artists, each MP3 downloaded is $1
  
  Package #2
  A monthly service for 20$ that has virtually all artists, each MP3 downloaded is $.50 with a maximum of 40 downloads at the lower price.
  
  and on and on and on.
  
  This would help the consumer switch to the new model and allow us to actually own music still. If I pay a montly price I don't want to pay full price for music.
  
  What's truly great about this is you can have sections up like "hits" where the bigger tracks can be advertised more kinda like the radio. However, with a monthly cost you can expose yourself to more independant sounds.
  
  Also consider that concerts may become better with large companies involved. Think about it, bands touring is all on themselves. If each album was handled by the band alone, they wouldn't' be near as good. So with the companies helping bands make great concerts, those will be even better. This could end up good or bad depending on the situation.
  
  Just ideas

  4.9.2007 21:31 #2

• Unfocused

  I like that he recognizes that the industry needs to change, but I do not agree with his proposed $20 a month idea. I've got over 2 TeraBytes of mp3's right now. This is more than I will be able to listen to in my lifetime. Under this proposed plan, if I didn't pay my monthly fee, I would have no access to my music.
  
  Portable players are here to stay, and as long as the corprate greed is running as rampant as it currently is, pirating is also here to stay.
  
  The consumers obviously want variable pricing on their music, why is it so hard to give them what they want. Consumer want to own what they purchase. Why can't I own my purchases?
  
  If I buy something from Audible.Com, I'm forced to use their proprietary format. if my portable doesn't support that format, I'm shit out of luck. However, if I owned my purchase, I would be legally able to convert this file to another format, thus giving me further enjoyment out of my purchase.
  
  Both the studios and musicians alike are really getting greedy. They push us to digital media, and then complain that physical sales are down. Piracy seems to be they only statement that is voiced by the consumers that the studios are willing to pay attention to.

  4.9.2007 22:13 #3

• mebjolz

  ................

  4.9.2007 22:14 #4

• webe123

  The music industry as a whole, has been "done" for a long time!
  
  This is not news!
  
  They are just so slow, they are just now figuring this out.
  
  And yet they STILL can't come up with a plan on what to do about it....amazing!

  5.9.2007 00:50 #5

• ematrix

  Without doubt you want to own your purchased music, not renting it or being restricted to use it. Even so digital music's popularity and sales are rising, it should not be seen as a subtitute for physical CDs, rather an alternative since the quality of any downloaded mp3 is inferior compared to uncompresed tracks on CDs.
  
  The three mayor problems with the current music business model are overpriced physical CDs, lack of quality artists and user restrictions, if they at least make CDs more affordable and appealing without DRM restrictions, this will reactive sales on stores as consumers will preffer buying uncompresed music rather than downloading mp3.

  5.9.2007 01:32 #6

• simpsim1

  Originally posted by mebjolz: Major record companies and bands like McTallica have loads of cash and do absolutely nothing to better society so screw them...download as much of their stuff for free as you can (besides McTallica suck and shouldnt be payed for anyway)...the thing I dislike about downloadable music is the way in which it is murdering the traditions surrounding album artwork, meaning eventually there wont bloody be any...yet another way of reducing costs and increasing profits, and Rick Rubin produces crap records for crap major label bands so it is no surprise to find him sitting in the executive chairs with all the other fat, rich pigs...hope he marries some bimbo like Mariah Carey, gives her a huge record deal and gets fired when the album fails to sell...
  LMAO!!
  
  Seriously though, I think it's about time the industry grew up somewhat. I appreciate that Mr Rubin is trying to evolve the "Model", but from what he's said here, it's more a case of evolving it to suit his own agenda.
  Quote:The same arcle that quotes Rubin claims that Columbia is considering approaching artists for a cut of up to 50% of revenue from touring, merchandise and from the Internet. Performers have typically been allowed to keep revenue from touring and merchandise while the label gets the biggest cut of a CD sale.
  Exactly what would they offer these artists in return for this revenue? As the poster above has rightly said (in a round-about way), it is - and always has been - about poor little rich Recording execs not getting paid enough. Where once it was all about managers, A&R people and record bosses doing all the legwork and reaping the rewards, the industry has now been turned on it's head... Artists are able to market and promote themselves (Lily Allen is a good example) and therefore bypass the A&R guys altogether. So if these guys want to keep on making money, then they really do need to evolve, and not just think about ways they can steal more money off the hard working artists.
  Quote:The subscription-based service that Rubin seems to be proposing is something that consumers have already been offered in several forms and have largely ignored. The concept of "renting music" seems too alien for consumers it would appear.
  I think that there is some scope for this music rental thing, but overall, I think that those people who pay for their music would prefer to have it available for as long as they like. Such a scheme (With the exception of being on demand) would be no better than simply listening to the radio. And as well as being free, radio is getting better everyday with the advent of internet radio stations and digital broadcasting.

  5.9.2007 01:43 #7

• Statik

  Hmm.. I already have a "rental" service of this kind and its free, apart from some commercials. Its called "Radio". Its in my car, in my home, in my cellphone, so its everywhere where I am.
  
  So I don't see myself paying 20 bucks a month to get something I already have for free. Besides, the artists also get money based on the music I listen on radio. Luckily there is a station here nowadays I really like (also on web: www.radiorock.fi)
  
  The recordlabels sucking half the revenues from touring and merchandise, wow, that is ridiculous. I mean, how can they justify that, if they justify their huge cuts on cd sales as "having the stuff to record the music with, and distributing it to stores".
  
  Greeeeed. Its too late to whine when the p33 is already in the panties.

  5.9.2007 04:30 #8

• oofRome

  Quote: The same arcle that quotes Rubin claims that Columbia is considering approaching artists for a cut of up to 50% of revenue from touring, merchandise and from the Internet. Unbelievable. I understand labels getting their cut of music sales, as they are responsible for production and distribution... But trying to get a cut, a 50% cut no less, for the artists going on tour and performing is just outrageous. I paid attention to this article until reading this. What a great new business model!: Have more control over your artists!
  
  Just unreal.

  5.9.2007 05:27 #9

• georgeluv

  frances model is the best, everyone pays 10 bucks a month, you get to pirate all you want.
  
  of course this is about 15 years off from happening in america because our poloticians serve huge media waaaaay before they even think of doing something that will benofit society as a whole. they are so brainwashed by lobbying they think those two things are one in the same.

  5.9.2007 05:32 #10

• BludRayne

  $240 a year to rent crappy music from no talent musicians, no thanks!

  5.9.2007 08:05 #11

• emugamer

  Hmmm....50% of the artist touring and merchandise. For doing what? They have to realize that their time is over. There is such little of a need for physical media in mass quantities.
  
  They are pretty much begging not to be dissolved. Instead of attributing this paradigm shift to technology, they are sueing people left and right. Instead of shifting with the technology, they are hanging on the edge of the Titanic. Wipe them all out. Let the artists control their own art. Online print cafe's should open up where someone can order the artists cover-art, etc. I can buy a 100 pack of slim jewel cases for $12.00. Cut out the middle man. Close down the CD pressing and printing facilities. Convert all large music stores to music cafe's with online capability, where you can buy a song online and load it to your portable device, browse an artists collection of cover or poster art, even order prints. Heck, throw in a Starbucks coffee bar or something. THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX!!!!! EVOLVE!!!! The RIAA should be wiped out. There is no need for them to manage and steal a recording artist's profits. Downloading a song is not stealing from the artist. It's the RIAA who are hurting.

  5.9.2007 08:10 #12

• SProdigy

  Originally posted by emugamer: Downloading a song is not stealing form the artist. It's the RIAA who are hurting.Well said. We hear the music for free (something we CAN do with plain vanilla radio) and then we pay $$ to go see the artist on tour. Artist makes money and the RIAA doesn't. So, what is the problem here? You're right, the middleman is cut out. Too bad. We're going back to a time when DJ's actually played what they wanted, and bands could bring their recording to the station. The middleman is a goner.

  5.9.2007 08:36 #13

• albino92

  I like the idea of the monthly fee because say you're busy one month and you have no time for music you don't need to pay for that month but if you're taking a flight somewhere you could buy that month.

  5.9.2007 10:27 #14

• DVDdoug

  Quote:Downloading a song is not stealing from the artist. It's the RIAA who are hurting. What? The only way artists make money is by selling songs and concert tickets. Every time you buy a CD or a download, the artist gets a royalty.
  
  The RIAA doesn't "get hurt" in any case. The RIAA is a non-profit trade group. One of the RIAA's members gets hurt if you choose to steal a song rather than purchase it.
  
  Quote: ...that Columbia is considering approaching artists for a cut of up to 50% of revenue from touring, merchandise and from the Internet. Bummer. Most new bands will agree to almost anything to get a record deal, but the already-successful artists will never sign a contract like that!

  5.9.2007 11:17 #15

• emugamer

  Quote:DVDdougQuote:Downloading a song is not stealing from the artist. It's the RIAA who are hurting. What? The only way artists make money is by selling songs and concert tickets. Every time you buy a CD or a download, the artist gets a royalty.Read the article dude. The label gets the biggest cut of the CD sale. Not the artist.
  
  The artist can find ways to sell their song. Like I said, they need to think outside the box. There is no need for a middleman. Let's use round numbers here. The average CD is $10, give or take. At least that is as much as I will pay for one. It's a good round number to use. Let's assume the Label gets 80% and the artist gets 20%. In this scenario, the artist is making $.20/song. Now what if there was no label. Well, artists would have to be more creative with marketing themselves, but they could charge $.50 for a digital copy of a song and still be making more than twice as much more than they did with a label. You say you want a hard copy CD with artwork? That's what every true fan wants. That's where a company like Cafepress would come in. Imagine a Cafepress type online store for CD's. All the artist has to do is upload the CD art. The online store would have the ability to create the CD as it would have been in a retail store. And only as orders come in. Not 2 million sitting in a retail stores all over the world. This way the artist pays the cost of production. That savings can get passed on to the customer, or the artist can take it. But at least it's not a bunch of suits sitting in 1,000 square foot executive offices doing nothing useful. Just collecting money for art that they did not create. This is called thinking outside the box. I only chose the numbers I did in order to prove a point. You don't need a middle man.
  
  And I'm sorry but I don't agree with you when you call it stealing, just like I don't agree with the RIAA. It's sharing, and if anything else, it's free advertising for the artist. Someone downloads, then likes what they hear and buys the album or song from an online retailer, or wherever. Most people aren't going to buy 2,000 songs they don't like anyway after they download them. Most crap is probably deleted. A downloaded song absolutely does not translate to a lost sale.
  
  I also find it hard to accept that I'm a thief if I tape a song off the radio or if a friend gives me a copy of a song from his/her CD.

  5.9.2007 12:47 #16

• simpsim1

  I was actually looking forward to a music discussion that didn't get round to the age old debate on piracy. Oh well, I guess I expected too much.
  
  The issue here is about Rick Rubin's so called answer to the declining music industry and his "Models" for the future. I am disappointed that we have strayed so far off-topic because I was looking forward to a good debate.

  5.9.2007 14:39 #17

• emugamer

  Originally posted by simpsim1: I was actually looking forward to a music discussion that didn't get round to the age old debate on piracy. Oh well, I guess I expected too much.
  
  The issue here is about Rick Rubin's so called answer to the declining music industry and his "Models" for the future. I am disappointed that we have strayed so far off-topic because I was looking forward to a good debate.The comment on people not wanting to rent music pretty much summed it up for me. Sorry I couldn't provide more fodder :-( What stood out to me as the most absurd part of this article is the labels wanting to cut into the touring and merch profits.
  
  What's your view on Ricky Ru? Initiate something.

  5.9.2007 15:49 #18

• webe123

  Quote:Originally posted by simpsim1: What stood out to me as the most absurd part of this article is the labels wanting to cut into the touring and merch profits.
  Yeah, that was the part that really got me. That just shows right there how GREEDY the labels are. They see their sales declining in CD's because of the stupid decisions they make to sue their customers...so NOW they want a cut of profits from what the artists usually lives on!
  
  Not to mention NOW they want regular radio to PAY...forget the fact that they have been paid ALREADY by playing their songs on the air!
  
  Anyone who is stupid enough to DEFEND these clowns needs to be shot in the head!

  5.9.2007 16:02 #19

• dikdimond

  Rubin is only saying what we have known for years...the old system has to go,plain and simple...glad someone has finally got the hint,but how long until real changes are made? Will the other labels follow suit?

  5.9.2007 17:03 #20

• mebjolz

  ...........

  5.9.2007 23:19 #21

• bomber991

  Originally posted by Ludikhris: I don't like the idea of not "owning" the music. At least he is a man with a good idea. We need to get this wheel really rolling in order to get the industry back on track. I bet a rental type model would fight piracy the best but it would have to have the option to buy as well.
  
  Perhaps a sliding fixed vs variable cost per song.
  
  Package #1
  A monthly service for $15 that has virtually all artists, each MP3 downloaded is $1
  
  Package #2
  A monthly service for 20$ that has virtually all artists, each MP3 downloaded is $.50 with a maximum of 40 downloads at the lower price.
  
  and on and on and on.
  
  This would help the consumer switch to the new model and allow us to actually own music still. If I pay a montly price I don't want to pay full price for music.
  
  What's truly great about this is you can have sections up like "hits" where the bigger tracks can be advertised more kinda like the radio. However, with a monthly cost you can expose yourself to more independant sounds.
  
  Also consider that concerts may become better with large companies involved. Think about it, bands touring is all on themselves. If each album was handled by the band alone, they wouldn't' be near as good. So with the companies helping bands make great concerts, those will be even better. This could end up good or bad depending on the situation.
  
  Just ideasSounds as confusing as a cell phone plan.

  6.9.2007 10:25 #22

• TagBiker

  Quote:And I'm sorry but I don't agree with you when you call it stealing, just like I don't agree with the RIAA. It's sharing, and if anything else, it's free advertising for the artist. Someone downloads, then likes what they hear and buys the album or song from an online retailer, or wherever. Most people aren't going to buy 2,000 songs they don't like anyway after they download them. Most crap is probably deleted. A downloaded song absolutely does not translate to a lost sale.
  
  I also find it hard to accept that I'm a thief if I tape a song off the radio or if a friend gives me a copy of a song from his/her CD. Say it how you like. You use something you didnt pay for and would not have been given to you for your use free by the creator of it, then you are a thief and stealing. Wouldn't you be a thief if you took a television from a store without paying, even if you wouldnt have paid for it if you could have? A tv is a far cry from a song, but the concept is still the same. Situational ethics is just an excuse to do what you want and not feel guilty. Wrong is wrong. And to say that a downloaded song does not translate into a lost sale is absurd. Not ALL of them do, but certainly you have dl'd cds you would have paid for, so at least SOME dl's are lost sales. Its a gray world, but you have to do what you feel is right.

  6.9.2007 12:14 #23

• emugamer

  Quote:Quote:And I'm sorry but I don't agree with you when you call it stealing, just like I don't agree with the RIAA. It's sharing, and if anything else, it's free advertising for the artist. Someone downloads, then likes what they hear and buys the album or song from an online retailer, or wherever. Most people aren't going to buy 2,000 songs they don't like anyway after they download them. Most crap is probably deleted. A downloaded song absolutely does not translate to a lost sale.
  
  I also find it hard to accept that I'm a thief if I tape a song off the radio or if a friend gives me a copy of a song from his/her CD. Say it how you like. You use something you didnt pay for and would not have been given to you for your use free by the creator of it, then you are a thief and stealing. Wouldn't you be a thief if you took a television from a store without paying, even if you wouldnt have paid for it if you could have? A tv is a far cry from a song, but the concept is still the same. Situational ethics is just an excuse to do what you want and not feel guilty. Wrong is wrong. And to say that a downloaded song does not translate into a lost sale is absurd. Not ALL of them do, but certainly you have dl'd cds you would have paid for, so at least SOME dl's are lost sales. Its a gray world, but you have to do what you feel is right.First you say its stealing as if it were black and white, then you say its a gray world and you have to do what is right. Intellectual property and rights is a whole different beast and cannot be compared to outright physical theft. I personally buy my CD's when I like an artist. I don't judge people for not though. I even take it a step further and by the Vinyl if available. But I have to feel that it's good enough. That is why I have trouble believing that a download translates to a lost sale. People delete songs all the time. Songs come and go from people's hard drive. A guy with 5TB of downloaded music probably doesn't listen to it and has no emotional attachment to an artist anyway, so wouldn't have purchased the box set. Or maybe he would have, but to make a blanket statement that someone is a thief doesn't make sense to me. The Labels don't have a grip on the feeling and emotion behind music and how it moves people to become a part of the experience. Once again, I find it absurd that if I record a song on a cassette that I can be fined and considered a thief. If I share a song with a friend, then we can go to jail. The beauty of music is sharing, and the definition of a thief is too broad.
  
  Sorry if many of you have already heard this stuff before, but I haven't been a part of a lot of these discussions.

  6.9.2007 13:42 #24

• TagBiker

  emugamer
  Thats my point... While I feel that getting something for free that would not have been given to me is stealing, I realise there is a perceived difference in an "intelectual property" and a physical good. What I feel is that time and effort went into the production of a song, and thats just as worthwile as the time and materials to develope any more physical product you might use. I mean to say you make up your own mind what is acceptable to you. Under the law and in my view, its theft. I certainly wont turn anybody in, I just dont do it myself anymore. Its gray because there is legal theft, and illegal theft. You can only go by your own moral compass. How can you say that a dl doesnt mean a lost sale?? Not everyone of course, but at least a couple of downloads were kept instead of buying the cd. Thats a lost sale.
  
  I agree that record labels are greedy. I agree MPAa RIAA suck ass. I hate DRM (and dont use anything that supports DRM if I can help it. I just had attitude with people who feel they deserve to take something for nothing cause its their right. If you enjoy something, support it, dont just take it for free and bleed the life out of a good thing. I didnt intend to turn this about you personally. Just got pissed reading posts about jackholes who felt its their right to take things for free that people devoted their time and money to develope. I'll go nap now.

  7.9.2007 05:40 #25

• emugamer

  Originally posted by wordwan: Perhaps, what it's really time to do is simply pay the artists what you think they are worth. And do so, directly. Find your artist's website and send him a check or paypal. Do it, now.
  
  The idea of a room full of lawyers or bookkeepers, needed to figure out what cut of the artist's work, the artist gets, should be over.
  
  You support your local 7-11 even, don't you, by not stealing the chocolate bars he keeps on his shelves to help guarantee his rent so you can still go to the store anytime for chocolate bars?
  
  Why can't you see artists in the same way? Pay them what they are worth, so they can buy their own chocolate bars (or yours, if you are another artist) and let's not shift this old paradigm, let's remove it.
  
  Find the artist whose work you are listening to and pay him, oh, say, the cost of a chocolate bar. (And don't tell me you can't afford it. How many chocolate bars did you buy this week?) Imagine if we all, each one, did even that.
  
  I bet lots of artists could live quite well on that.
  
  Visit your local artist online and ask him, "where's the money" to be sent to?
  
  Just a thought.
  
  Heather Lovatt
  wordwan
  "Support your local creatist"Interesting idea, but I still think it is in the best interest of the artist if he/she was in total control of pricing. Artist provides art - customer pays artist. No need for money to exchange from any other hands. If you're feeling benevolent enough, then it wouldn't hurt to donate to an artist either ;-)

  10.9.2007 14:50 #26

• borhan9

  This is not going to solve the issues. Clombia needs to move to digital but not drm locked files.

  10.9.2007 16:10 #27

• emugamer

  Originally posted by borhan9: This is not going to solve the issues. Clombia needs to move to digital but not drm locked files.Which issues are you referring to? People downloading music for free? People don't like DRM and there are ways to bypass it. So DRM isn't really a factor in any argument. It's just a nuisance. Artists need to drop labels, give up on any DRM and put their trust in their fans. There has to be a point where the artist says "if you like my work, buy my stuff" - and then accept whatever profit he/she makes. That profit would determine the value of that persons art. Invite the fans into their world. Provide the experience they want. Work for the $$$ by relying primarily on touring. Create quality merchandise. Music should be something heard freely without charging frivolous royalties. Just my opinion.

  10.9.2007 16:45 #28

• mebjolz

  Originally posted by wordwan: Perhaps, what it's really time to do is simply pay the artists what you think they are worth. And do so, directly. Find your artist's website and send him a check or paypal. Do it, now.
  
  The idea of a room full of lawyers or bookkeepers, needed to figure out what cut of the artist's work, the artist gets, should be over.
  
  You support your local 7-11 even, don't you, by not stealing the chocolate bars he keeps on his shelves to help guarantee his rent so you can still go to the store anytime for chocolate bars?
  
  Why can't you see artists in the same way? Pay them what they are worth, so they can buy their own chocolate bars (or yours, if you are another artist) and let's not shift this old paradigm, let's remove it.
  
  Find the artist whose work you are listening to and pay him, oh, say, the cost of a chocolate bar. (And don't tell me you can't afford it. How many chocolate bars did you buy this week?) Imagine if we all, each one, did even that.
  
  I bet lots of artists could live quite well on that.
  
  Visit your local artist online and ask him, "where's the money" to be sent to?
  
  Just a thought.
  
  Heather Lovatt
  wordwan
  "Support your local creatist"that all sounds great in theory, and to a certain extent it has been implemented already, for example The Brian Jonestown Massacre have the majority of their albums (full albums!!) available for free download from their website along with a link for fans who are generous enough or feel indebted enough to pay funds into a paypal account for them. Unfortunately, as an artist myself I know how people value creativity until it comes down to their wallets, its a different matter then...

  10.9.2007 20:46 #29

• militantm

  I'm with the rest of the folks here who say $20 a month to rent, to hell with that, try more like 10 a month. Satellite radio is less than that already and Sirius plays some great stuff. As for the record companies cutting into half the acts profits from touring and merch, they have nothing to do with either one, why should they be entitled to half of the real work the acts have to do to survive? You can check for yourself a lot of these groups have to tour constantly just to stay financially stable. Most are not millionaires, at some point half of nothing is nothing. Next they'll be projecting expected tour profits and go off that then sue the acts for the remaining amount they didn't able to come up with. there is such a thing as cancelled shows and failed tours due to less than expected ticket sales you know. That's certainly a marriage I wouldn't want to be involved in. There was a time when I thought old Rick was cool cat, if he really said any of what was mentioned in that article he can go jump in the lake, his pockets are plenty full. Whoever wrote some of his production efforts were sub par they were also correct, he may have some popular recordings(units sold) under his belt, but let's face it folks, the quality of the production on a lot of them is crap.

  14.9.2007 15:48 #30

• simpsim1

  Originally posted by emugamer: What's your view on Ricky Ru? Initiate something.
  On all fronts he's a fat cat. He's also not stupid. He knows that the industry types are backed into a corner due to the downloading market. He's also seen a massive decline in new artists due to self promotion/publishing and all that. So basically, he's looking to screw any new artists or smaller established ones with a Half-your-touring-fees-thank-you type contract. As somebody else said, any artist worth his/her salt is never going to agree to that.
  
  My earlier argument still stands. The discussions concerning the RIAA and the morals of illegal downloading are totally irrelevant to this topic, although given the topic subject, not totally unexpected. The real question is: Given the current state of play with legal downloads and with more artists promoting themselves, how likely is it that these big industry types will cease to exist altogether eventually. The hype in the press was that if the mainstream industry ceased to exist, that quality music would also cease to exist. More likely it's the other way round. The wave of opportunity that has been opened up thanks to the power of the Internet can only lead to more quality material we might have never heard otherwise. It'll also hopefully rid us once and for all of the big money-making manufactured tripe we're all subjected to at the moment.
  
  True evolution, people power style!!!

  15.9.2007 13:08 #31

• mikeyhavoc (unverified)

  Rick Rubin made out better then the Large Record Labels that held onto the old he went with his ears musically and visual and is still ahead of them.

  20.3.2011 04:36 #32