Steve & Todd Share Files:
The Music Industry Bytes

Wired.com recently published a short article on downloading, the music industry, and Wilco's progressive approach to making their music available online, with some quotes from Wilco's Jeff Tweedy. Todd sent the link to Steve and the following email "conversation" took place:

Steven T. Rubin: Good article, yes. But I have some issues with it. First off, I wonder how different Tweedy's views on file-sharing would be if his band was selling 10,000 copies and still playing tiny dive-bar rock clubs. On one hand you want your music out there anyway you can get it. But if you're ONLY making your living off selling your CD's (something plenty of bands do) then I can see why you would be against it. Calling this whole file-sharing, webcasting, internet releasing, way of doing music a war is ridiculous. I steal music all the time as does most everyone we know. Every time you copy me a CD, technically, were stealing. However, do I care if Sonic Youth gets $3 less dollars because we did it? Of course not. I'm not Sonic Youth. But put yourself in Metallica's shoes. Yes, they are gazillionaires and have had as much success as any band in the last 20 years. BUT...does that give us the right to essentially steal their music? We both know it's not like you say to me, "Hey Steve, I want to STEAL from Sonic Youth and burn you a CD." Of course we don't think like that. But it's what we're doing. And if Eight Track Mind was only selling 100,000 copies of a national/worldwide release, but we found out another 350,000 downloaded it for free, then I'm sure we'd be pissed off.

So, got anything new to burn for me?

Todd Levinson Frank: Yea, I see what you're saying... I guess the point is maybe Tweedy would like to see the "industry" embrace the internet and other technologies instead of ramming $17.99 CD's down peoples throats.

Personally, while I do some downloading, if I find something/someone I really dig I will eventually buy their shit. That's a sale they never make without the exposure of downloading. And true, just because Metallica is rich doesn't mean they should give away CD's. LeBron James is rich, but they don't offer free tickets to see him.

Also, it is a bit ridiculous that they go arrest some 15-year-old for downloading... but I don't remember them every suing HP or Dell or any other computer company that makes CD burners. I know burners have other legit uses, but so do P2P file-sharing programs.

There's definitely some hypocrisy flying around from all sides. But most bands make like $1 or $2 off of a CD. Touring is where they really make the money.

I think the record industry's motto should be, "If anyone's gonna rip off artists, it's gonna be US!"

STR: Good LeBron analogy. And I think the industry is embracing the internet. Sure, it's taken a while, but look at itunes and all those new services online. The industry's problem is that they are forgetting about the artists themselves. Since they created the "we need a hit single" world, artists like Wilco, Radiohead, Tool, etc. don't see as much money as Linkin Park, Ashley Simpson, and J Lo. So for these artists, the internet does spread their music to people who would otherwise never hear it. Like you said, you usually go out and buy the product once you've downloaded and liked it. I just didn't agree with the negative backlash that Metallica got with their whole anti-Napster shit. Bottom line: it is stealing music. And people think "ha, we're only screwing over the industy. If they lowered pricing on CD's we'd buy more" Bullshit, free is always cheaper

TLF: True...

I think the industry has done a shit job of artist development over the last 20 years. They don't care. They want the money and only Nelly and Britney can give them the quick money fix, and who cares if Nelly and Britney don't last, they'll find/invent new ones. In the old days, a band like Wilco would be groomed over several albums and many, many years. Now, after a few critically acclaimed albums and some okay sales, they got dropped because the idiots at their label didn't hear a hit on Yankee Hotel Foxtrot. Stupid.

If I ever see you again, I'll let you borrow Learning To Die by Greg Kott. It's essentially the Wilco story, but really details the industry as well. Very fast/interesting read and a great book even if you're not a Wilco fan.

I mean, in 2005, would Neil Young or Bruce Springsteen even get signed?

STR: There is absolutely no way Neil Young or Bruce would be signed today. And if they were, they would be Ryan Adams-esque: indie and critical acclaim, but no sales. And you're right about artist development. A good example could be Pink Floyd. Their first six albums probably sold a total of a million records combined at the time. Then Dark Side of the Moon came out and they blew up and eventually sold over 60 million. You think a record company would have the patience today to allow a band to take seven records to succeed? And you can listen and see through their discography that each record grew and got better. Today, if you're lucky enough to have one good record, it's unlikely you can have two (see Pearl Jam—remember them?). Even today's one-hit wonders (see: Jet) have their 15 minutes and become a trend six months later. Weren't The Strokes supposed to be the next biggest band in the world? In five years you'll see them on "I Love the 2000's."

TLF: True. Bruce's first two albums garnered critical praise and shit sales. (Looking back, it's astounding that those two great albums were released within one calendar year.) And the label was getting itchy before Born to Run. They made a serious media blitz for it's release and obviously that paid off and the music backed it up. But nowadays, he might not be able to make Born to Run because the label would have dropped him. OR, they would have spent ZERO promoting Born to Run since they didn't want to sink money into an artist that didn't sell well and it would have received some good reviews and few sales and THEN they would have dropped him.

Laughing at "I love the 2000's."

Interestingly enough, Pearl Jam has done some decent stuff.... I haven't heard several of their records, but I did here their most recent and it's pretty good. But that's not the point. Pearl Jam brings us to something else: Since they (unsuccessfully) challenged Big Bad Ticketmaster, stopped making music videos, and started releasing all their concerts on CD to kill bootlegging.... it seems the industry decided that Pearl Jam was no longer valid. No more magazine covers, no more critical acclaim, and barely a blip on the media radar screen when they release a new album. Funny how that happens. Or Prince. Once he got out of his Warner Bros. contract and started releasing shit on his own label through his own website, the industry called him a freaky recluse. They barely even reviewed his material.... like, "he wont play ball with us, we'll pretend he doesn't exist." And in the last 10 years he's put out some good stuff. Sure, some of it wasn't great, but some of it was. No one heard it. So then, last year he decides to sign with a major label. All of a sudden, he's back on magazine covers. He's getting airplay. Critics line up to hail the "return to form of His Purple Majesty" and say how great the album is. Granted, Musicology was a good album, but funny how it that happens.

STR: The Bruce thing is exactly what happened to Floyd. Minus the good sales and critical acclaim. The point being, they had the patience to make sure they made something of him. You see, back then, the record execs were still shady but they actually LIKED AND CARED about the artists they represented. They saw the talent in Bruce and did all they could for him. Today's A&R reps want the next fad, trend, single, cover, ad, etc. They could care less if Bruce recorded himself taking a shit. If it sold 3 million copies they would act like they love him. I guess that's all based on the fact that back in the day these labels weren't owned by billion dollar corporations. In Neil's biography, they talk about how influential Neil was in getting Geffen Records created. David Geffen was one of Neil's managers and was a "musician guy." Ironic how he turned out to sue Neil for "not making albums consistent with the Neil Young sound." He lost that battle and lost Neil as a client.

The Prince thing is absolutely ridiculous. Here's a guy who has been making excellent music for more than 20 years, proven himself over and over as both a critical and commercial artist. Has more talent than every single pop star out there today combined. But gets "blackballed" because he wanted to do it himself. Seems like every DIY band (Pearl Jam, Grateful Dead, Prince) gets shafted by the mainstream media cause they don't have Sonny Black from Warner Bros. calling them up and kissing their asses to get their artist on their cover. You know that once Prince got dropped, no one was calling Rolling Stone on his behalf. But the second he gets back on, they are all over the media blitz. That's the one thing the labels have: media access and favors. That's why its so nice to see a band like Wilco make it. No flash, no singles, no good looking lead singers, no videos, no airplay. All word-of-mouth and critical acclaim.

TLF: Yup, and Reprise (another Warner label) was big in the 70's and cared about artists... nurturing people like Randy Newman and Joni Mitchell and other artists they knew weren't huge sellers or stars, but they cared about the music. Ironic that it would later be Reprise that dropped Wilco in the YHF fiasco. By the turn of the century, labels were so bottom-line oriented, that execs were losing the jobs. With all that turnover, there was no one left who cared about Wilco, but they damn-sure cared about losing their jobs, so they needed hit singles.

The funny thing about Prince is he knew it would be like this. He made Musicology and wanted to release it through a big label and then launch a major tour. I think it was a one-album contract. Now he'll probably go back to Paisley Park and release stuff on his own for the next 10 years and they'll say he's taken another left-turn into obscurity.

And yes, nice to see Wilco "make it," but there's still so many people who have just never heard of them. No one knows who Ryan Adams is, but they all know John Mayer.


The original article in Wired that sparked this conversation can be found here: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/view.html?pg=5