Jimmy Iovine Knows Music and Tech. Here’s Why He’s Worried.

The record executive who made the leap to Silicon Valley looks back on the decade in the music business, and sees a major problem on the horizon.

- Share full article

- 64

Jimmy Iovine, pictured in front of Ed Ruscha’s “Our Flag,” started the decade running a major label and ended it retired from his position at Apple Music.

Credit...

Brian Guido for The New York Times

Ben Sisario

By Ben Sisario

Dec. 30, 2019

The biggest story in music over the last decade was the industry’s reconciliation with tech — after a decade fighting the internet, the music business fully embraced it in the 2010s. Streaming has now finally returned the business, which was nearly decimated by the shift from physical to digital formats, to growth.

Perhaps no one has had a broader view of this phenomenon than Jimmy Iovine, the producer and record executive who made the leap to the other side. He and his partner, Dr. Dre, sold their company, Beats Electronics, to Apple for $3 billion in 2014 and helped launch Apple Music, the tech giant’s late entry to the streaming market, which now has more than 60 million subscribers.

It was, from the start, a strange pairing. Apple is obsessively cautious in maintaining its public image; Iovine, the son of a Brooklyn longshoreman, blurts profanities in a high-pitched rasp and is one of music’s great hustler-salesmen. But Iovine, who co-founded the Interscope label in 1990 and led it until he left in 2014, has long been one of the sharpest observers of the tug-of-war between the entertainment business and Silicon Valley.

Iovine, 66, retired from Apple in 2018, and says he has devoted himself to passion projects like the XQ Institute, an educational initiative led by Laurene Powell Jobs, who was married to the Apple co-founder Steve Jobs. He has even started taking guitar lessons. “I’m realizing how hard Tom Petty and Bruce Springsteen’s jobs really were,” he said from his home in Los Angeles, with a chuckle.

Iovine has also become a dedicated collector of contemporary art, guided in part by David Geffen, his friend and fellow mogul retiree. His most prized work is a 2017 commission by Ed Ruscha, “Our Flag,” an update to one of Ruscha’s perennial subjects that shows a star-spangled banner ripped and tattered — a striking comment on contemporary politics.

“If you looked at the painting and thought it represented the disarray of democracy you would be right,” Ruscha said. “Any flag that flies for 250 years deserves to be a little soiled but nothing this extreme.”

In a series of conversations in December, Iovine spoke about his career transition from the studio to the halls of Cupertino, and the tangled relationship between music and tech in the 2010s. Artists, he said, are more powerful than ever, thanks to social media — but too few, in Iovine’s opinion, have made social statements as bold as those by the 82-year-old Ruscha and “Our Flag.”

“This painting says more than any song that I’ve heard in the last 10 years,” Iovine said. “Why is that?”

These are edited excerpts from the conversation.

Back in 2010, you were still at Interscope, where you had hits with Lady Gaga, Eminem, the Black Eyed Peas. At the same time, you were building up Beats. But within four years, you left the label and sold Beats to Apple. Why did you take that trajectory?

What you’re talking about actually goes back 20 years. It’s all a response to Napster. I saw how powerful that technology was, and I realized we had to switch gears. The record companies were not going to exist without tech.

Why I got into the music business originally was to be associated with things that were cool. And I realized that the record business at that moment, the way it was responding to Napster, was not cool.

Image

Iovine with Lady Gaga and Dr. Dre in 2009.

Credit...

Dimitrios Kambouris/WireImage, via Getty Images

Meaning suing people?

Yes, and putting up a moat, like that was going to do something. So I said, “Oh, I’m at the wrong party.” And I met a bunch of people in tech. I met Steve Jobs and Eddy Cue from Apple. And I said, “Oh, this is where the party is. We need to incorporate this thinking into Interscope.”

I find out a lot through the artists I work with. Dre is a perfectionist of audio, maybe one of the greatest audio producers that ever existed. And when I found out what Dre was concerned about, that the equipment his kids were listening to the music on — an entire generation was learning about audio through cheap, inefficient equipment. That’s how Beats started.

Steve Jobs used to sit with me at this Greek restaurant and draw out what I needed to do to make hardware. He’d say, “Here’s distribution, here’s manufacturing,” and he’d be drawing on this paper with a Sharpie. And I’d go, “Oh, [expletive].”

So what did you learn when you got to the other side?

I didn’t want it to be the other side. I wanted it to be all one thing. I wasn’t bailing on music. I always thought that technology was going to get people to listen to music in a better way, and you were going to promote it all through a streaming service. But it would all be in the same house.

Is that where things ended up? Are music and tech in the same house, or is the house divided?

The two sides don’t speak the same language. Content doesn’t know what technology is building. And engineers are just going by the way they see a problem. The streaming business has a problem on the horizon, and so does the music business. That doesn’t mean they can’t figure it out.

What’s the streaming business’s problem on the horizon?

Margin. It doesn’t scale. At Netflix, the more subscribers you have, the less your costs are. In streaming music, the costs follow you.

And the streaming music services are utilities — they’re all the same. Look at what’s working in video. Disney has nothing but original stuff. Netflix has tons of original stuff. But the music streaming services are all the same, and that’s a problem.

What happens when something is commoditized is that it becomes a war of price. If you can get the exact same thing next door cheaper, somebody is going to enter this game and just lower the price. Spotify’s trying with podcasts. Who knows? Maybe that will work.

And let me just say, what Daniel Ek has done with Spotify is extraordinary. I knew who he did those original deals with. Those were impossible deals, and they’re suffering from that now. All the streaming companies are. But he’s done an incredible job.

Image

Iovine with U2’s Bono and the Edge and Apple’s Steve Jobs, in 2004.

Credit...

Tim Mosenfelder/Getty Images

If you look at the last 20 years of the music business as a recovery from Napster, has the problem now been solved?

I don’t view it as problem solved. There’s been progress, but there’s a ways to go yet. If I were still at Interscope, here are the things I’d be worried about. I’d be worried that I don’t have a direct relationship with my consumer. The artists and the streaming platforms do.

I’d be worried that an artist like Drake or Billie Eilish streams more than the entire decade of the 1980s, according to the information I’ve seen from labels and streaming services. I’d also be worried that the streaming services aren’t making enough money, because that can jackknife.

What about the future of the record business? Why should the next Billie Eilish sign with a record company at all?

The artists now have something they’ve never had before, which is a massive, direct communication with their audience — from their house, their bed, their car, whatever. And because of that, everybody wants them. Spotify wants them, Apple Music wants them, Coke wants them, Pepsi wants them. And people that make terrible second records are still famous and still have online audiences. The power of celebrity, this obsession with Instagram — it’s driven by personality and lifestyle.

So hail to the artists, because in the end they’re winning. It isn’t their problem to figure out how the streaming company and the record company are going to make more money. It’s the streaming company and the record company’s problem to figure out how to become more valuable to that artist.

You left Apple in 2018, just three years after launching Apple Music. Why?

When I went to Apple, it was a new creative problem for me. How do we make this the future of the music business? How do we make it not ordinary? But I ran out of personal runway. Somebody else will have to do that.

What do you think about Taylor Swift pushing for control of her master recordings?

Well, who doesn’t want to own their masters? But what she is doing is amplifying that because she has a giant platform. That’s going to have an effect, and it isn’t going to be neutral. So if you’re a 16-year-old kid making music on Pro Tools, that is now in the conversation. If I was still at Interscope. I would say, “O.K., this is coming. So I have to figure out, how do I evolve my relationships with artists?”

What’s the secret for an artist to have a long career today?

Quality — of everything you do. Make quality the priority, not speed. Speed is marketing, but you have to have something great to market.

Dre says we’re seeing a lot of quantity over quality right now. Somebody asked me the other day, how do you make a Christmas album that lasts? I said, “Don’t make it with disposable artists.” If you don’t want to be disposable, take care of the art.

Image

Iovine in the studio with John Lennon in 1974.

Credit...

Bob Gruen

Are you impressed by artists’ work now?

Artists have these new platforms that are very, very powerful. So why do visual artists like Mark Bradford, Kara Walker, Ed Ruscha, Jenny Holzer make such powerful statements on where we are today in our culture, like Marvin Gaye, Public Enemy, Bob Dylan or Rage Against the Machine did? What has changed?

One of the reasons I left music was because there wasn’t a kind of music that I related to. I grew up with Patti Smith, Bruce Springsteen, John Lennon. When Neil Young’s “Ohio” came out, I was 17 years old. I was a year from being drafted. My instincts said that this war is wrong. And here was a guy whose music I loved, and all of a sudden, I was part of, “We don’t agree with this.” And Neil Young had one-tenth of one percent of the platform that some of these artists have now.

These days I am getting that from the art world and not the music world.

So I call up Ed Ruscha, and I said, “Could you make me an American flag?” And he said, “Only if I can make it the way I feel about America today.” And I said, “Absolutely.”

When I got that painting, I knew that Ed had hit on something. And I said, “Where are the musicians that are doing this?”

There are some clues. Have we entered into an age of music where artists are afraid to alienate people? Since the country is so polarized, am I afraid to alienate the other audience? Am I afraid to alienate a sponsor from my Instagram? I don’t know. I’m asking the question.

But you do have artists like Eilish who are talking about climate change.

There are a few. But not nearly enough.

If I were still running Interscope, I would be signing artists and encouraging them. Right now there are a lot of people running around saying, “What’s making noise on TikTok?”

That’s fine. But I’m more encouraged by the people who are saying, “Whoa, this artist has something to say. I’m going to support them, because I believe that in the end they’re going to win, and that will make all of us win.”

Comments 64

Skip to Comments

The comments section is closed. To submit a letter to the editor for publication, write to letters@nytimes.com.

- Reader Picks

- All

Sort by: Newest

Kahman commented January 5, 2020

K

Kahman

The 'burghJan. 5, 2020

This is thinly disguised hagiography. However, I can't let this go by without commenting: "an entire generation was learning about audio through cheap, inefficient equipment. That’s how Beats started." It is well known in the professional audio industry that Beats headphones are not designed for serious listening. No professional uses them. They are fashion statements and nothing more. Iovine clearly has trouble distinguishing between science/engineering and advertisement/sales.

16 Recommend

Flag

Larry commented January 4, 2020

L

Larry

Akron OHJan. 4, 2020

Unfortunately, Iovine, who has been my favorite among record execs in the last 20 years, can't put his finger on the exact remedy to cure the music industry ails and what concerns him. But, it is on the tip of his tongue when he is talking about "quality versus quantity". Thing is, people like Iovine need to stop saying "if I were at Interscope I would....." and put his money where his mouth is. We were formally signed under Iovine's watch at Interscope many years ago, and here's the answer to the music industry's problems: Songs with a message, written from the heart out of desperation to make people think about what is going on around them, not what is revolving around the songwriter. It's about performing a service that makes people "feel" and "think". Politics and music never work together. But, the politics of life work to stir people's minds first and leads to the stirring of their hearts, causing them to want to be a part of something big.....(part 2 to follow)...

6 Recommend

Flag

Cassandra commented January 4, 2020

C

Cassandra

EuropeJan. 4, 2020

Buy on Bandcamp.

2 Recommend

Flag

xavier ginsberg commented January 4, 2020

x

xavier ginsberg

laJan. 4, 2020

Silly me, all this time I thought Jimmie was what is wrong with the music industry

9 Recommend

Flag

Larry commented January 4, 2020

L

Larry

Akron OHJan. 4, 2020

Part two... Music is a movement, not a platform. If music was a plane, it would have never had a take off and it never would have had a landing. It's just...there. It's a gift from God. When Iovine talks about his "searching" for what he wants from music and how that has transitioned to his affection towards the form of "art" or a painting, he needs to be reminded that most of the greatest "artists" in the world never made a living until after their death. Maybe the problem with music started when someone looked at it as a way to make alot of money? After all, the creative mind is not limited to just music. The creative mind is an overarching umbrella to all forms of art and the beautiful. I think Iovine knows he might have been involved with the creation of the downfall of the music industry. He didn't intend it. But, he helped it.

7 Recommend

Flag

Miriam Chilton commented January 4, 2020

M

Miriam Chilton

Montclair, NJJan. 4, 2020

I hope budding artists and industry professionals heed Jimmy Iovine’s astute and clear vision of what is needed in America today. Music has to be a compelling voice for mobilizing change. We need fewer songs focused on individual experiences and more on the power of the collective action.

6 Recommend

Flag

K.I.A. commented January 4, 2020

K.I.A.

K.I.A.

...Jan. 4, 2020

Apple, Google, and cable companies all made their profits off of artists. People spent $500 on a phone because they could fill it for free with thousands of songs. Google made massive revenue from selling ads at pirate sites. Cable companies sold you high speed internet to download that free music quickly. All of it could have been handled better (pirate sites blocked from the beginning, not 15 years later; internet cable co.’s charged royalties, etc.) Spotify has lost hundreds of millions every year. Apple, Amazin, Google, can lose millions as a loss leader to sell hardware or other product. Solution? Support an artist (music, visual, writer) you like by buying their product (or as a patron). Iovine does it (albeit at a blue chip level) - so can you. Send some dollars to your favourite artist, so they can make great art.

5 Recommend

Flag

Plush commented January 4, 2020

P

Plush

ChicagoJan. 4, 2020

The dominance of talk talk rap and hip hop has had a poor influence on art and on the level of music today. Inner city cynical music views are treated as cartoons by consumers, yet persists at the top. Check the upcoming Grammy Awards show. The core music business is very weak right now and the recording industry is in a shambles. Money losing streaming is dominant in a way that can’t last. Iovine identifies the precise problems and we should pay attention to this pro’s views.

5 Recommend

Flag

John Ozed commented January 3, 2020

J

John Ozed

HobokenJan. 3, 2020

I worked for a major label in the late 90's. One day on the sidewalk outside, while having a smoke a young man came up to me with a cassette and asked how he could get it inside. I don't know how or why, but I told him to forget it. It was all changing and that he would be able to do it all himself. He was confused as I broke it down, how the internet was re-writing the rules to this somewhat crooked game. Nowadays I joke that the young man was Kanye West...

6 Recommend

Flag

Nikki commented January 3, 2020

N

Nikki

IslandiaJan. 3, 2020

I have to wonder whether the state of music today is due as much to MTV as to Napster. While Napster changed how music could be delivered, it followed on the heels of a change in what music was about. MTV drew emphasis away from sound quality and composition and toward visuals and glamor. As the emphasis shifted toward what performers looked like, did something not get lost? While of course there were some exceptions, I feel like the trend toward sameness and safety really started then. Video Killed the Radio Star, indeed.

9 Recommend

Flag

1 Reply

Gerard commented January 4, 2020

G

Gerard

MichiganJan. 4, 2020

@Nikki Dear Nikki, Perhaps you aren't old enough to remember Elvis Presley, Buddy Holly, Jim Morrison, David Bowie, or Janis Joplin, Grace Slick, or Stevie Nicks. Even Frank Sinatra ("Old Blue Eyes") once had an army of bobby-soxers who thought he was cute. "Good looks" and cultural royalty have always traveled together, long before MTV, haven't they?

5 Recommend

Flag

Charlie commented January 3, 2020

C

Charlie

LondonJan. 3, 2020

Like Apple, when Beats opened for business in the UK it based itself in Ireland for tax purposes. By all means spin idealistic narratives involving Ed Ruscha and Neil Young — but if you avoid tax in this way and to this extent you are the system you decry — cynical, self serving, venal. Yep, Jimmy Iovine IS the Man. Stories of hanging w Lennon and Patti and — good grief— strapping on a Telecaster are poor camouflage. ‘Turning rebellion into money’ eh?

24 Recommend

Flag

R commented January 2, 2020

R

R

Naples, FLJan. 2, 2020

Thank god I learned how to read music in 1969! I have been a musician since and I love to listen to music ultimately made for musicians. Jazz! Real musicians, real music, real talent!

8 Recommend

Flag

4 Replies

Vesuviano commented January 3, 2020

Vesuviano

Vesuviano

Altadena, CaliforniaJan. 3, 2020

@R I'm sixty-seven, and have listened to jazz all my life. Still do, but mostly I now listen to "dead guys". Why? Because with very few exceptions, today's up-and-coming jazz artists can't hold a candle to those that went before. If that's true for musicians, it's even more true for composers. Duke Ellington was the most prolific American composer, with Ives running second. There are no jazz composers now remotely comparable to Ellington, Monk, Miles, and the rest. Our current culture is too shallow for jazz.

10 Recommend

Flag

Dao commented January 3, 2020

D

Dao

EarthJan. 3, 2020

@Vesuviano You have about 10 years on me, but i feel a primary issue is we are now able to hear the influences. Jazz as it exploded in the early 1900's was just as influenced by what went before as any other genre that we call out today. The training of our internal ears makes it more difficult to hear when something new is breaking out.

4 Recommend

Flag

Vesuviano commented January 3, 2020

Vesuviano

Vesuviano

Altadena, CaliforniaJan. 3, 2020

@Dao You make a good point. However, here is where I'm coming from. The economics of music have changed and are continuing to change faster and faster. Technology is now involved to a much greater extent than I'd like. Jazz artists now are creations of the business world - Kamasi Washington is an example. I think the period of jazz that I find most satisfying is the late 1950s, which was second-generation bebop. Jazz clubs were thriving (Try to find an affordable jazz club in pretty much any major American city now other than New York or New Orleans), and a lot of the material being played by jazz combos still came from Broadway. If you wanted to make your bones, you went to New York and you went on the road. Now jazz is concert hall music. In Los Angeles, near where I live, more jazz is played in connection with the L.A. Philharmonic than in the rest of the city combined. Yes, "something new is breaking out", in your words. But I don't think it's nearly as good as it was. Younger people aren't listening to it, and younger musicians, outside of a handful, aren't playing it. Jazz had a good run, and I got to see and hear more than my share of it. Even if I don't have jazz clubs, I've still got my dead guys. Cheers.

5 Recommend

Flag

Dan commented January 4, 2020

D

Dan

Golden Road to Unlimited DevotionJan. 4, 2020

@r not to be offensive but you really need to get out more. Jazz is alive and well and as a matter of fact more popular than ever, however, still not main stream. Youth learn it and love it! All the music you like is still being composed, arranged and performed by people that are often much better than the original because we’ve had years to study them. Just like the the general population has a lot more people now, genres have many more styles. Its definitely not all for everybody but with a little poking around theres tons of jazz out there to enjoy. That said many of our early masters were so unbelievably talented and original its mind blowing.

1 Recommend

Flag

M. G. commented January 2, 2020

M

M. G.

BrooklynJan. 2, 2020

The 70's 80's 90s were all about sound quality I hope we get back to that again So much of pop and contemporary music sounds so compressed and lifeless

16 Recommend

Flag

Parker commented January 2, 2020

Parker

Parker

NYJan. 2, 2020

I don't know enough to comment on the industry itself, but every once in a while - after a particularly gruesome news day - I wonder where is the music? Where are the brilliant songs of protest, anger, lament? Where are the anthems for Americans still clinging to hope for their country and the globe? We have never needed them more.

25 Recommend

Flag

2 Replies

Jammin In 2020 commented January 2, 2020

J

Jammin In 2020

NYCJan. 2, 2020

They are EVERYWHERE, you just need to know where to look.

7 Recommend

Flag

CA commented January 3, 2020

C

CA

New YorkJan. 3, 2020

@Jammin In 2020 True, they are out there, just ignored by the mainstream. It is much more an issue of popular demand than lack of content. Sad to say -- and I think Iovine implictly agrees -- that grit and meaning in music are no longer important to consumers. Like everything else, the cheap, quick, and superficial reign.

4 Recommend

Flag

TL commented January 2, 2020

T

TL

CTJan. 2, 2020

Despite the drama on cable news, the truest sense of how bad or good things are lies in the quality of the music. The fact that music is so lousy and derivative today speaks to how good things are. As for social consciousness, who knows what Billie Eilish is mumbling about. I had no idea she was all about climate change. There's either no message or an inaudible one.

11 Recommend

Flag

Johninnapa commented January 2, 2020

J

Johninnapa

Napa, CaJan. 2, 2020

Nowhere is it acknowledged that the streaming of music is a compressed file with the life sucked out of the high & low end. Nowhere is it mentioned that music has for the most part become a means to deliver eyeballs to advertisers. And if we only ever had algorithms to pick the streaming songs would we have ever had concept records like Dark Side Of The Moon, Kind of Blue, Live Dead, The White Album.. and many many more works of art. Plus, those of us that used to have the big gatefold cover LPs know just how hard it is to roll a joint on your iPhone.

45 Recommend

Flag

Jammin In 2020 commented January 2, 2020

J

Jammin In 2020

NYCJan. 2, 2020

This is all Top 40 talk. The really good, original art that’s akin to his art flag is all mostly off the commercial radar. Steve Lacy, Unknown Mortal Orchestra, Solange, Dirty Projectors, Fleet Foxes, Flying Lotus, Thundercat, Panda Bear, Crumb... man, there is so much incredible musical art being made today. As much as I love Neil Young and John Lennon, Iovine sounds like he’s still mostly yearning for the past. The best example of the fusion of past/present, Top 40/underground, is probably Childish Gambino’s “‘Awaken, My Love!’” Absolutely genius. I watched the ball drop performances, and although they were energetic and mesmerizing, the most popular songs of each genre today sound exactly the same. I kept thinking: formulaic. Iovine is out of touch and thinking too much about money.

18 Recommend

Flag

1 Reply

Pam Oliver commented January 3, 2020

P

Pam Oliver

DenverJan. 3, 2020

@Jammin In 2020 Sounds like you just made Iovine's point.

1 Recommend

Flag

Mark McIntyre commented January 2, 2020

Mark McIntyre

Mark McIntyre

Los AngelesJan. 2, 2020

Iovine talks about how musical artists have "power," but for most of them that doesn't translate into money. I saw a tv interview with the great Smokey Robinson, who lamented he could no longer make money selling his music. He said if you buy a track online for $1.29, he gets a penny, which doesn't pay the bills. Smokey, along with many other artists have to stay out on the road to make ends meet, and that doesn't get any easier when you're in your 70s. David Crosby bitterly complained that paying exorbitant insurance premiums at every venue where he performs is taking all the incentive out of performing and creating new music... https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/david-crosby-what-if-we-lose-live-performance.693569/

10 Recommend

Flag

Nikki commented January 2, 2020

N

Nikki

IslandiaJan. 2, 2020

Mr. Iovine wonders where the artists are that will change the world, but he's asking the wrong question. The artists are out there. The question to ask is, why aren't they finding an audience with enough critical mass? Some of that is the industry's doing -- when we can customize our playlists and each person can listen to only what meets with his or her taste, the audience is necessarily fragmented. This applies to streaming video, music, news, podcasts, what have you. That is a sea change from when the only way most people got exposed to new music or tv was through a limited number of channels or stations. If Dylan got played at all, he got played to a mass audience. M*A*S*H and All In The Family likewise played to a mass audience. It's much harder to reach that many ears or eyeballs now, because the consumer has so much more choice and control. The other problem is societal. We have indeed become less tolerant of anything that doesn't jibe with our own preferences and preconceived notions. Those few who still succeed in reaching huge audiences (like Taylor Swift) must indeed keep activism muted and avoid alienating listeners. "Cancel" culture speaks to a willingness to stop listening or watching the minute we are challenged. You really can't effectively make a big, critical statement in that climate, not if you've got bills to pay. Artists must choose whether to go for mass success (and $$$) or play to small audiences willing to hear a more edgy message.

9 Recommend

Flag

3 Replies

Gerard commented January 4, 2020

G

Gerard

MichiganJan. 4, 2020

@Nikki Dear Nikki, When all of us can "customize our playlists and each person can listen to only what meets with his or her taste" aren't we simply doing what we WANT to do? What we CHOOSE to do? If I feel like listening to an "edgy" message, I will. Similarly, it's not that artists "must" choose mass success, but they can choose to strive for that and $$$ or for something else on which they WANT to spend their time and creativity and earn perhaps fewer $. If there is a societal problem in all this, it's certainly a first-world problem. I know I can be perfectly happy in world where I never ever have to listen to Drake or Billie Eilish if I don't want to.

1 Recommend

Flag

Bruce commented January 5, 2020

B

Bruce

NJJan. 5, 2020

@Gerard The problem is that our agency, or choice, to listen to different and challenging music is in many ways a pseudo choice, courtesy of the algorithms that most of us allow to order our lives. To have true choice requires us to abandon the algorithms and challenge ourselves. For me, the demise of “The Loft,” a moderately freeform station focused on new music, on Sirius says all we need to know about the public’s willingness to be challenged.

1 Recommend

Flag

Gerard commented January 5, 2020

G

Gerard

MichiganJan. 5, 2020

Bruce, I admit I don't understand the apparently widespread fear of "Manipulation by Google". I don't "allow" algorithms to help me order my life, I ask them to. I can search for Rage Against the Machine just as easily as Taylor Swift. I can turn off Google and go search Bandcanp. I don't find any of this challenging. The hardest part is deciding how I want to spend my time, because I'm fortunate to have lots of choices. In the case of The Loft, which I recall listening to when I had a Sirius account, perhaps it just didn't find a large enough audience to justify its existence to its managers. I can't read too much about public taste from the cancellation of one TV program or radio menu item...

1 Recommend

Flag

JK commented January 2, 2020

J

JK

Los AngelesJan. 2, 2020

Like all tech entrepreneurs, he's just not very much behind the notion of the actual creators of music being paid enough to live on.

16 Recommend

Flag

G P commented January 2, 2020

G

G P

Southern CaliforniaJan. 2, 2020

Jimmy Iovine has been a hero of mine and — along with Brian Eno — helped produce and distribute some of the music that has had the biggest impact on my life. Saying that, I’m not sure why he’s celebrating fine artists as opposed to musical artists. He is undoubtedly in the unique position of having made a fortune from others’ creativity (and using his ingenuity to raise awareness that has contributed to their success). It’s incredibly telling that one of the seminal figures in music distribution over the past generation does not have an answer for the record labels that shepherded his career and fortune. Is that NOT an indicator of the dubious relationship with talent that A&R titans like Geffen, Branson, and Iovine rode to fame and fortune? There are so many creative ways to look at the talent relationship (e.g. professional soccer, Formula 1 racing, etc). My sense is — like Jony Ive — Mr Iovine is a figure whose unique talent seems to have been watered down by decades of success and accolades. Is it surprising that someone who has worked in the background facilitating relationships has amassed a fortune that now blinds him to the realities all around us? Mr Iovine is firmly on the side of the business (capital) and the fact that he has trouble relating to talent (labor) is a sign of our times. The world is on fire and some artists are finding ways to break through with a unique voice — much like the 1960s artists Mr Iovine idealizes. With respect, sorry boomer.

22 Recommend

Flag

1 Reply

Plush commented January 4, 2020

P

Plush

ChicagoJan. 4, 2020

Nope, playa! Diminished landscape.

Recommend

Flag

John Garcia commented January 2, 2020

J

John Garcia

AustinJan. 2, 2020

I don't know who any of the artists mentioned in the article are. I essentially stopped listening to new artists and their music after December 31, 1979. I do have some of my music out on the major streaming services and their rate of pay is ridiculous. I do get satisfaction though, that my music is being streamed in several countries. Very interesting and satisfying. At this rate, I'll be able to retire when I'm dead.

4 Recommend

Flag

cfc commented January 2, 2020

c

cfc

VaJan. 2, 2020

Does he not understand that the public largely believes that internet content should either be free, or almost free. Subscription music is barely different from Napster. It allows people to "rip the archive". It's not free, but close to it. All you can eat for one price. Of course that doesn't scale. It's a service, and in the end nobody makes money on services.

4 Recommend

Flag

DF Trees commented January 2, 2020

D

DF Trees

USJan. 2, 2020

The idea of a musical artist being a multi-millionaire is a relatively recent phenomenon from the past century. It seems that we're heading backward toward's the historic mean, and simply making a living wage is what today's musician should strive for. Nowadays, streaming and Instagram are primarily advertisements for an artist's live performance, where money is primarily made, and I'm ok with that.

3 Recommend

Flag

Sasha commented January 2, 2020

S

Sasha

New YorkJan. 2, 2020

"Dre is a perfectionist of audio, maybe one of the greatest audio producers that ever existed." Lol

31 Recommend

Flag

2 Replies

michael r commented January 2, 2020

m

michael r

brooklynJan. 2, 2020

@Sasha Lol? really? why?

1 Recommend

Flag

thostageo commented January 2, 2020

t

thostageo

bostonJan. 2, 2020

@Sasha sounds like a salesman , eh ? good bass , tho - no 'sprise

6 Recommend

Flag

Ó Fiannaidhe commented January 2, 2020

Ó

Ó Fiannaidhe

IthacaJan. 2, 2020

“Where are the musicians that are doing this?” you mean like AJJ, Fat Mike (NOFX), The Caper, Jeff Rosenstock, Street Dogs , Swinggin Utters and on and on and on ... On Bandcamp and "indy" labels, i.e., staying as far away from the "industry" as possible. (geez, - you created the rules, but now after allowing the situation to naturally evolve following your rules, you complain about the "artist" you are left with.)

17 Recommend

Flag

godisnowhere commented January 2, 2020

g

godisnowhere

San Diego, CAJan. 2, 2020

There are plenty of musicians with bold social commentary out there. Jimmy might not know them because they are mostly making their own way in the world without the help of giant record companies. He's absolutely right about the problems facing streaming services though. The fact that anybody can access nearly every bit of recorded music ever released for $9.99/month is not good for streaming services, record companies or musicians. But it's great for music fans and I'm certainly not complaining!

16 Recommend

Flag

steve commented January 2, 2020

steve

steve

Hudson ValleyJan. 2, 2020

Until 3 months ago I would check for new releases on my ITunes account and purchase the albums that I liked. They would be subsequently downloaded to my IPod(!) that would be plugged into the car. I also have XM in both of my cars. My 23 YO daughter suggested that we upgrade her Spotify subscription to a family plan to allow me to listen to a more diverse selection of music. It is incredible. I have been discovering new artist's that will not be played on XM, download their albums, and now follow them with the hopes of attending a local performance. XM will be cancelled and I have not purchased anything from Apple in months. Jimmy anticipated these changes and positioned himself well.

10 Recommend

Flag

1 Reply

thostageo commented January 2, 2020

t

thostageo

bostonJan. 2, 2020

@steve got to agree Spotify

2 Recommend

Flag

Andy commented January 2, 2020

A

Andy

BrooklynJan. 2, 2020

I find it strange that he compares a visual artist like Ruche to musicians and music that is so clearly commercial. It's so extremely far from an apples to apples comparison. The musical "artists" he refers to are a tiny fraction of the music making world who only represent the very easiest music to ingest. There's no mention of the musical artists creating music that is a more equitable comparison to a visual artist such as Ruche. These are musicians that receive almost zero airplay, streamed or otherwise, and that have virtually no exposure to the larger public because what they make is too challenging for the average listener to relate to. He seems to equate "artist" with money maker. If he's looking for musicians who make art with the same embedded meaning of his Ruche flag he might try stepping out of the McDonalds of music and pay attention to some of the music being made by actual artists.

27 Recommend

Flag

2 Replies

steve commented January 2, 2020

steve

steve

Hudson ValleyJan. 2, 2020

@Andy Can you recommend any and where to hear them?

4 Recommend

Flag

pcierpial commented January 3, 2020

p

pcierpial

MichiganJan. 3, 2020

@steve There are worlds of them on Bandcamp, a platform that's a whole lot more equitable for musicians. I'm not against streaming (I've come to find Apple Music valuable, especially for accessing decades-old jazz albums not in my collection), but those algorithms only go so far. I've discovered almost all of the new bands / artists I listen to on Bandcamp, either by digging into specific record labels or by sifting through other people's collections. It doesn't quite match the charm of the accidental discoveries possible in a record store, but it comes close! Best rabbit hole on the internet!

1 Recommend

Flag

Harmon Smith commented January 2, 2020

H

Harmon Smith

ColoradoJan. 2, 2020

Great insights by Mr. Iovine regarding the business of music and also lack of risks being taken by musicians. With outrage bubbling over regarding national leadership, global warming, endless wars, human rights atrocities, where are the voices in music giving rise to an America seeking meaningful change? Perhaps Americans just don’t care anymore — thus the tattered flag. Put an outrage record label together, stream it, press it or make it a ring tone and I’ll be a customer.

11 Recommend

Flag

Cary commented January 2, 2020

C

Cary

OregonJan. 2, 2020

I don't see the problem that Mr. Iovine sees. Streaming music services should be a commodity, much like the cloud. Streaming is a technology service that needs to be as efficient as possible, driving reasonable profits to the service providers, and equally reasonable profits to the music makers. The alternative is islands of semi-exclusive music services with overpriced "features" that result in limits to what listeners can access and excessive costs for streaming services. The best streaming services will find ways to make it work and they will survive. But Mr. Iovine seems to be longing for a way to reap excess profits from streaming, and in that world, consumers lose.

7 Recommend

Flag

1 Reply

Wileoly commented January 2, 2020

W

Wileoly

Tampa FloridaJan. 2, 2020

@Cary If reasonable profits for the music makers is supposed to be part of the equation, streaming as a business model for artists is a fail. Sure, the biggest stars of pop music like Drake and Taylor Swift are making real money from streaming, but for the artists that aren't dominating the charts, that isn't the case. For most popular music artists, if they can't make money from gigs, they don't survive financially. The music consuming public has adopted the mindset that recorded music should be a close to "free" as possible and that's had disastrous consequences for artists. What we really need is a business model that equitably distributes profits, provides a reasonable income stream to artists for their creative efforts, and allows service providers a reasonable profit as well. So far, we aren't there yet.

11 Recommend

Flag

MIPHIMO commented January 2, 2020

M

MIPHIMO

White Plains, NYJan. 2, 2020

A tiny minority of artists ever made money on their recordings. That hasn't changed. What has changed is the sheer number of recorded artists competing for listeners and money. The gate keepers of the industry blocked a lot of talent but made access to distribution more selective. The firehose of content now being created and shared online makes JI's comments very relevant. In a market of quantity, quality stands out. Artists that resonate are artists that speak the truth in a compelling, non-preachy way. Good music, well recorded and skillfully promoted will find a way. Artists that innovate in their content and in the way they share that content will prosper. Standing in line with everyone else hoping to "get signed" and playing the same material as everyone else isn't a viable plan. Knowing who your market is and how to reach them yourself is key. Artists also need an education in history, economics, visual arts, political science and philosophy, etc., not just the same skills every other musician has. You can't share a story you don't have and musicians may need a second career to pay the bills while they build a following. Not all artists are naturally business inclined. They may need a partnership with someone who is. But it is a good idea for all musicians in this developing market to take the time to understand the business they are in so they can learn what to expect from their business partners and not fall prey to opportunists the business has always attracted.

11 Recommend

Flag

3 Replies

stuckincali commented January 2, 2020

s

stuckincali

l.a.Jan. 2, 2020

@MIPHIMO O.K. how are these musicians going to eat? If they need all these skills, and need to work a second job to avoid being homeless, why on earth would anyone want to release music? Artists like Kate Bush, who did not tour a lot in their careers , would not exist in today's music world. What if you are a musician who does not wish to be on social media 24/7,sharing every thought or experience, just so someone will listen to their music?

6 Recommend

Flag

sugarpussOShea commented January 2, 2020

s

sugarpussOShea

Oakland, CAJan. 2, 2020

@stuckincali Most musicians make their money from touring, a tiny bit from merchandise like t-shirts, posters. That's why going to see live music is always the best way to support the (smaller) artists you love.

1 Recommend

Flag

The Real Mr. Magoo commented January 2, 2020

T

The Real Mr. Magoo

VirginiaJan. 2, 2020

@MIPHIMO "In a market of quantity, quality stands out" Does it? How? Music is like another once profitable field - photography - where there is so much quantity, much of it dreck, that quality just gets drowned out. In both, and other arts I am sure, there is some genuine quality, but it gets lost in the noise of quantity. How does a quality musician making music that speaks to our times, our politics, our world, manage to stand out from the sheer quantity of other stuff that is coming out daily? How does that musician reach the average music buyer out there? "Knowing who your market is and how to reach them yourself is key." Seems easier said than done.

7 Recommend

Flag

Christopher Hawtree commented January 2, 2020

C

Christopher Hawtree

Hove, Sussex, EnglandJan. 2, 2020

Well, I've got my eye on the recent boxed set of 7 discs of Nat Cole's pre-Capitol recordings. Just the thing for the sofa, and reading the book with it, during a Hove winter. Streaming is not the same.

23 Recommend

Flag

John F. Thurn commented January 2, 2020

J

John F. Thurn

Mojave Desert, CAJan. 2, 2020

“So hail to the artists, because in the end they’re winning.”. Wrong. That’s why all my successful independent musician friends in LA are hardly able to pay rent, right? Have you ever considered how inherently unnatural it is for an “artist” to also have to be a marketer, a self promoter? To participate in the hustle of commerce (not a natural motivator in the mind of an artist!). We have an art problem, and art shouldn’t have to rely on the artist being the marketer.

44 Recommend

Flag

3 Replies

Derrick commented January 2, 2020

D

Derrick

New JerseyJan. 2, 2020

@John F. Thurn What is your definition of success if your "successful independent musician friends in LA" can't afford to pay rent? i think the point JI is making is that commercially successful artists are seeing less and less value in traditional record companies/deals since they have direct access to their customers via social media and streaming services. This flips the script in terms of who really needs who in the music business.

1 Recommend

Flag

JR Berkeley commented January 2, 2020

JR Berkeley

JR Berkeley

BerkeleyJan. 2, 2020

@John F. Thurn Amen on all counts. Hustle the tunes, hustle the gigs, do all the promo, all the stuff that's more or less at odds with creating music (or anything else). Streaming, Jimmy? Puleeeze. I just pulled up some stats - Google just paid me $0.0049 for one of my songs; Spotify is playing in the neighborhood of $0.0020, Amazon premium sometimes as much as $0.0107 and sometimes as little as $0.0041 ... and so on. Do the math. And you're commissioning Ed Ruscha to paint something for you Jimmy? Nice. You don't happen to have a spare room in your house I can move into do you? Signed, another LA musician (nee Berkeley)

24 Recommend

Flag

Nikki commented January 2, 2020

N

Nikki

IslandiaJan. 2, 2020

@John F. Thurn This is neither unusual nor unique to music. In fact, it is why more than half of all new businesses fail. You may be fantastic at dog grooming, carpentry, office cleaning or whatever your specialty may be, but you may not be good at sales, marketing, bookkeeping, managing staff, etc. Thing is, until you are actually selling enough of whatever product or service you do to earn enough to pay others to do those things for you, you have to do them yourself. Many small businesspeople are lousy at sales, or marketing, or record keeping, or whatever, and that proves to be their downfall no matter how talented they may be at producing their main product.

4 Recommend

Flag

RH commented January 2, 2020

R

RH

Seattle, WAJan. 2, 2020

> Q: What’s the streaming business’s problem on the horizon? > A: Margin. It doesn’t scale. At Netflix, the more subscribers you have, the less your costs are. In streaming music, the costs follow you. I don't get it. Why do the costs follow the scale in music streaming but not Netflix? I would think both sides have high fixed costs and low marginal costs.

1 Recommend

Flag

5 Replies

Stephen commented January 2, 2020

S

Stephen

New YorkJan. 2, 2020

@RH Because Netflix produces and owns original content while Spotify largely doesn't and pays artists for every stream.

14 Recommend

Flag

Dan commented January 2, 2020

D

Dan

Golden Road to Unlimited DevotionJan. 2, 2020

The artist pays the price of creating content that then goes to whatever service and receives a few penny’s in return.

7 Recommend

Flag

David commented January 2, 2020

D

David

CaliforniaJan. 2, 2020

@RH This needed followup and clarification. The short answer is music copyright, royalties and licensing. It is ugly, complicated and works against artists. The rules need to change but Disney and other corporations want to continue their control over artists and their catalogs. Taylor Swift is trying to get what Ray Charles had. Control over Masters. Follow the money.

17 Recommend

Flag

Steve commented January 2, 2020

S

Steve

CaliforniaJan. 2, 2020

@David I am reading the book 'Spotify Teardown' and I just learned that Spotify does not pay a fixed royalty for each track, but an amount based on the number of times that track was streamed as a percentage of ALL track streams during the time period. Also, music aggregators and metadata aggregators (such as Tivo!) get a cut of the revenue and serve as gatekeepers for artists who want their content to be (or not be) on streaming services. You can check out Paul Resnikoff's article archive for more info, https://redef.com/author/544555153269564840959915

2 Recommend

Flag

David commented January 2, 2020

D

David

CaliforniaJan. 2, 2020

@Steve it isn't just about streaming. This article lays it out well, but the whole thing is a mess. https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2014/02/28/understandpublishing/

1 Recommend