No Shoe-Strings Attached, Unless They’re Converse
No one cares what record label paid for an album. Fans are oblivious to whether EMI, Warner Music Group, or Sony Music had their hands on it. The day is coming when fans might have to care. Converse plans to build a recording studio called Rubber Tracks in New York City. Bands will be able to apply online and those regarded as enthusiastic and disadvantaged enough will be granted the opportunity to record their album, for free, in the new studio space. Artists keep the ownership rights to their music. Converse says they won't sway the creative direction of the music.
Is this a dream come true for artists or a nightmare in the making?
If an artist wanted to get signed by a major record label or, at least, attract the interest of an indie, they might not change their sound necessarily. But they'd still make the main product—the group—more appealing to their target.
What compromises does an artist undertake to charm Converse? How do they increase the chances of a corporation taking interest in their music?
Corporations have always wanted to integrate themselves with youth culture.
Now, instead of having an indie song played in their commercials, they're paying for the production of the song itself. Brands used to just plaster their names around anything they wanted to associate themselves with. Anything to get teens to think of their products as more hip and representative of their generation.
Converse has always been a part of music, in some fashion; Kurt Cobain wore them and so did the Ramones. They didn't, however, purchase them at Target.
Will fans of up-and-coming bands be more sensitized to the idea that the group wears Converse shoes because they're still grateful that the company provided free studio time for their last record? Or, will they be unable to differentiate between personal taste and corporate intrusion into the cultural sphere?
Fans buy the shoes to identify with the artist who is really paying homage to a corporation. The whole point. Converse takes on a new life; it intertwines with not only with youth culture, but youth and culture. Artists, those usually distrustful of corporations, are increasingly left to rely on whoever will pay the bills. Is this a new ally of the artist or the beginging of the degration of music as we know it?
All throughout history, artists have been supported by whomever could best support them.
Why would this necessarily degrade the music? In fact, it seems like most bands would rather align with a brand that fits them rather than settle for a 360-deal with a major or indie record label.
Converse has always been pretty forward-thinking, and they know who buys their product. Seems to me like this is a fairly logical step for them, and one that could prove to be good for their bottom line while helping bands out, and hopefully putting out some great productions with some talented acts.
Was just posing a question that I though to be interesting. I'm not all that worried about converse. But, down the road there could be others. I think this will prove to be a good thing.
I’ve been discussion patronage models with some other music industry people for awhile now. The particular idea from Converse is very clever. They are fulfilling a true need by providing free recording, but they don’t need to worry about what happens to the bands/artists after that. The company isn’t trying to oversee a band’s career from beginning to end, which often comes with a lot of risk. This way their contribution is important, but very definable.
any new business model that empowers and gives opportunity to artist and bands that would not other wise get the chance because of the major label MONOPOLY, is a great step in the right direction. like the gentleman stated above, it sure as hell beats a BULLSHIT ASS 360 Deal.
So what’s in it for Converse?
A relatively inexpensive way to associate themselves with music culture. Running a music studio isn’t a big expense compared to traditional advertising or sponsoring events. In fact, it would be a pretty cheap sponsorship opportunity for lots of businesses in local communities — buy and studio and put an engineer on salary.
Now that I think about it, a company probably wouldn’t even need to buy the studio. There are a lot of studios and owners whose services are underutilized, so a company could probably cut some pretty good deals.
I don’t think that when people grow up, they will become more broad-minded and can accept everything. Conversely, I think it’s a selecting process, knowing what’s the most important and what’s the least. And then be a simple man.