Comments on: Converse Rubber Tracks: What’s a Shoe Company Doing With a Recording Studio?

By: Angel Centeno

Angel Centeno — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 00:55:02 +0000

It seems to me that Converse is inevitably going to use the artists they eventually select as marketing “whores”, if you will. After taking a class on communication ethics I’ve learned that large companies, such as Converse love using a tactic known as “guerilla marketing” to raise awareness about their products to individuals who may or may not be intrested. Even though Converse is allowing these artists to record in a professional studio, I think the main agenda here is to use the product the artists create for creating advertisements that will in turn potentially increase profits. As you mentioned, in a recent New York Times article, a spokesperson for Converse claims that music isn’t intended for commercials, but the Terms & Conditions references their rights to use the material created by the artist they choose. I personally think this is a great oppurtunity for up-and-coming artist to get their names out. However, i am also aware of the possible motives Converse has in building the studio and selecting “hip” music acts to use the facility.

By: Tim Anderson

Tim Anderson — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 19:06:07 +0000

For the past three years I have taught courses to musicians at Old Dominion about the music industry and I am always stunned by what they do not know when it comes to rights. Their naivete is in a lot of ways structural and what we need are new modes of education and, perhaps, we can work together on that.

My main concern is that we need to educate musicians that what it means to “make it” has to change. This is hard work since mainstream media sources provide nothing but “all or nothing” narratives for artists and what we need is to represent the possibilities and the belief that middle-classness if optimal for artists.

Also, ass I talk to musicians it is clearer to me that many of them are just not interested in doing their own promotional work. Honestly, I can’t blame them. What looks like opportunity to us looks like busywork for a person who simply wants to create beautiful sounds.

Finally, the point of production issue is very interesting. The idea of giving back and patronage is a long standing rhetoric for indies who want to do things like document scenes and be there solely for the music. In many cases those indies were mismanaged and all too often couldn’t pay their musicians. At worst they simply ripped them off. My feeling about this is that the only way to counter such naivete is with systematic education at many levels.

Great post!

By: Eleanor Seitz

Eleanor Seitz — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 16:31:25 +0000

Interesting story – this type of “patronage” or sponsorship seems more insidious to me than corporate tour sponsorship or traditional label signing because Converse, part of Nike’s TNC intact with their corporate agenda, is filtering bands at the recording stage. And the application seems extremely vague – I am curious to know what kind of unlisted criteria is use to select artists.

By: Andrew Bottomley

Andrew Bottomley — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 16:28:34 +0000

Thanks, Tim. These are all great points, and I appreciate your putting all of this in a bit more historical perspective. For sure, sponsorship is nothing new to rock music; in addition to the concert tour sponsorships that you mention, bands have been receiving clothing and musical equipment sponsorships for decades. But as I see it, those sponsorships are almost exclusively limited to live performances and the marketing/promotion end of things – activities that happen after a musician or group is already well-established. Notably, the sponsors have little to no involvement with the creation of, let alone ownership claims to, the musical content.

What I find unique about Converse’s Rubber Tracks studio is that the sponsorship is happening at the point of production (only a few prior deals like the Bacardi/Groove Aramada one have moved in this direction). Indeed, Converse is acting very much like a traditional label, but they’re doing so under the guise of patronage and “giving back” to the music community. We’re in a moment where musicians have an unprecedented amount of agency and autonomy at their fingertips, but at the same time the exploitative potential of initiatives like these are tremendous. It definitely raises a lot of concerns about musicians’ rights in this anything-goes environment.

I’m trying not to be too cynical, but as someone who’s worked in and around the music industry for the better part of 15 years, I’m definitely observing a nonchalance and naivete on behalf of many “indie” artists today toward corporate sponsorship. It’s becoming uncritically accepted that the way to “make it” today – that is, to get a commercial break and be able to profit off your art – is to cozy up to these lifestyle brands.

By: Tim Anderson

Tim Anderson — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 15:12:36 +0000

A lot of good stuff here, but let’s begin with the fact that sponsorship has slowly taken over as a substantial form of patronage since the late 1980s when more and more beer and liquor companies got into the act of sponsoring tours. In the 200s Sprite became a sponsor to many hip hop events and Vans regained footing in the punk community (no pun intended) with their Warp Tour. In 2008, the same year that LiveNation make accelerated moves toward 360 signings of Jay Z, Madonna, Nickelback, etc, we see Bacardi signing Groove Armada. My point here is to frame your “long history” comment by reminding ourselves that the period of Rock dominance (not Rock and Roll) that lasts from 1964 til about 1990 may be the historical exception where finance, production and distribution practices were stabilized almost exclusively around label systems.

That said, Converse’s grab of Synch rights isn’t new. Labels who invest in the masters keep the masters and all the rights that pertain to them. In fact, Converse is acting more like a traditional label than anything else.

That said, I really love this post because we are in this great moment of flux where musicians MUST become more and more aware of their rights as the opportunity to exploit them for their own worth are growing exponentially.