Conversations To An End
Retail, Promotion,Criticism and the Dream of Making it Big

Nate Ruth -- musician, record store manager, and music addict

So you've gone from playing in assorted bands, managing a couple record stores, to recording your own album. Looking back, what would you say the process from playing in bands to selling records as a retailer to seeing your records being sold and bought has been like?

More than anything else, playing in a lot of different bands and working in record stores probably helped keep my mind pretty open. I remember at one point I was playing guitar in a punk band, drums in what you might call a noise band, and piano in a classical kind of setting, and sometimes I would do all three of those over the course of a weekend. And then I would start playing the classical songs in punk guitar style, and the punk songs on piano, and relatively quickly it all became kind of the same thing to me. And talking to people at stores and seeing people be so enthusiastic about so many different styles of music I think had a similar affect.

Just the idea that it's really ok to like anything you want to like, and that you shouldn't be ashamed if a piece of music that's not considered cool by one of your friends has an affect on you. And as far as my own records being bought and sold I'll probably always feel a little weird about that. Having people pay to see shows doesn't bother me quite as much as the records, but I still find all of it a bit strange for whatever reason.

Commercialism. It's everywhere and of course rampant in the music industry. What frustrates you most about the marketing campaigns, the one sheets, the managers, booking agents, etc. and how have you made a conscious effort to look past that all. Has that made you hesitant about making a record in the first place?

Yes, all of that made me hesitant. But it got impressed upon me that just because the music industry is totally corrupt, and much more concerned with money than music, does not mean that music itself is corrupt. And just because things have gotten really bad and we happen to live during this market share oriented time doesn't mean we should completely disassociate ourselves from something like music if it happens to come naturally to us. See, to me the power of music is pretty amazing. I've seen it do things I never would have believed it could do.

But the music and communication industries seem to be almost trying to make that power of music invalid. Almost as if they're trying to lower the standards so much that music itself is no longer a threat to the norm or the status quo. Trying to reduce it to something disposable, mostly by catering to this lowest common denominator idea of how intelligent they think the record buying public is. Now you might be thinking I'm somewhat paranoid, but consider the conflicts of interest and how comical it all is - and that's before you even start to consider the commercialism aspect.

I mean, the same company that owns BMG also owns CDNOW, which is weird enough, but now they own Napster and I think Audiogalaxy along with a bunch of other things. The corporate theory is that file sharing is cutting into record sales, so their proposed solution is to buy the most popular file sharing companies. But as I've said many times about file sharing, if Sergeant Pepper came out today it would sell millions even if it were available in mp3 via the internet. It's not the file sharing, it's the affect that the records have on people. The most economically successful major record company in the world is owned by Seagram's; the same company responsible for those lovely alcoholic beverages. So if you have a hugely successful record on that label, part of the profits are essentially going to manufacture alcohol. Pretty funny. And then Seagram is owned by the same company that owns MP3.COM and Emusic, along with a bunch of other stuff. Time magazine and other major news sources, a bunch of television networks - a couple of which are major news sources, a major record label, a major internet service provider, and a major internet software company, are all owned by the same company. At one point, a major record company that was trying desperately to discourage cd-rs was literally owned by the company that invented cd-rs, who were in turn trying to promote them. And then there are less than ten companies that own virtually all of the major radio stations, and some of them also own television networks.

Clearly the goal here is some sort of communications world domination, and the end goal is profit; and to get the profit as quickly as possible. And to eventually reduce it down to one company and have one company that runs the whole racket. And these big companies are like playing chess or something. I have friends who work in A&R for major record labels, and sometimes we'll be talking about a really interesting band we both like, and they'll say something like "Yeah I'd love to sign a band like that someday, but I'd probably lose my job." Because at the end of the day the only number that matters now is how much money the bands that you sign generate. And you are judged on that. And the company as a whole is judged on that because they have to answer to one of these giant companies that own them. One guy I know jokingly equated the A&R division of his company to a law firm or an advertising firm, saying "Yeah so and so A&R person has this band's account, and this other person has this other artist's account so she's doing really well, but as for me; right now my accounts aren't looking so good. I'm never gonna make partner at this rate. Do you know any really attractive 12 year olds?"

With the commercialism, we as a society have, for some ungodly reason, put musicians and actors and entertainers up on these pedestals. I've always wondered why doctors aren't famous and followed around by paparazzi all day. Why isn't the greatest doctor in the world just as well known as Madonna or whoever? Shouldn't the greatest doctor in the world be a household name, much more so than somebody who is singing a song? Is what doctors and scientists and teachers are doing less important than what musicians are doing? But see, it's the media who helps put these people up on pedestals. And now the same companies that own the media own the entertainment companies. And those companies condition us to look up to these so-called stars. They're deciding who we should look up to for us. Do you see what I'm saying? Marketing and advertising has a lot to do with repetition. And these big companies can create this scenario where everywhere you look on tv and every time you turn on the radio it's like Britney Spears, Britney Spears, Britney Spears. And they can have these commentators on tv stations that they own talking about Britney Spears, and ads on web sites they own with pictures of Britney Spears, and magazines talking about Britney Spears, they can have commercials for other companies they have a financial interest in featuring Britney Spears, and Britney Spears on sale on the best sellers wall at such and such store, and so forth. And after awhile in the eyes of some people this validates her. This makes her important. This makes her album something that people want to buy, or at least something that they want to hear, so they can form their own opinion about her. And you know what? Straight up, I have nothing against Britney Spears. I haven't met her and I don't know too much about her. She just makes for an obvious recent example.

Also, and I hate to keep harping on this but, you know, you asked. A lot of people have this idea that Britney and the Backstreet Boys and N Sync and major labels are the enemy, and that they are the reason things have become so bad. But anyone wondering how conservative the major labels have become just needs to recognize that those three acts - in terms of sales figures one of the more significant mainstream music events in recent history; they all came from an independent label. They all came from the same independent label. The same independent label that put out records by A Tribe Called Quest. Major labels turned down the Backstreet Boys. They said they didn't think there was a market for them in America. How funny is that? But since then the majors have been clamoring around copying off the independent label trying to capitalize on the success of those three acts with the next big teenage whatever, and at the some time questioning whether Wilco deserves to have a record out. Eventually of course a major corporation bought a stake in the indie label, and now that same corporation is going to get full control of the independent label's parent company, Zomba. But all the kids spending their days hating the Backstreet Boys and loving Tool need to realize that Tool and the Backstreet Boys are working for the same parent company. And all the people that hate the Backstreet Boys and hate Tool and therefore thinks Zomba sucks need to realize that Sonic Youth and a lot of others run their publishing through Zomba. The companies try to create these little controversies between bands because they've found that little controversies sell records, but meanwhile the public remains uninformed that seven times out of ten the bands are working for the same company. The Backstreet Boys are managed by the same management company that manages two of the most popular rap rock nu metal acts. And those nu metal acts have even had their share of feuds with each other. Are they real feuds? I don't know. Do the feuds keep their fan base and the media talking about the bands? Yes. These kids walk around with all this animosity towards these boy bands, but when they're buying a ticket to see one of the nu metal acts the 15% or whatever off the top that their management gets is going to the company that manages the Backstreet Boys. When MTV or whoever wants to make a deal with the Backstreet Boys or one of these nu metal acts, they're calling the same office. Now again, I have nothing against any of these people. I don't know what it's like to be them et cetera et cetera. All I'm saying in regards to commercialism is that whether or not a lot of people think certain music is important is determined primarily by marketing campaigns, not by an artist's music or even by the artist's behavior. It's these big companies, and in many cases the exact same company, that throws this stuff at us. And it all seems a bit unhealthy and sometimes bordering on Orwellian to me, and the fact that they're treating us all like we're stupid can get a little annoying at times.

Reviews have been mixed about Whatever It Meant, the album's title alone seemingly predicting that confused response. Do you read reviews? What it is like to read or hear about strong opinions for or against something you slaved over for so many hours mentally, physically, financially, spiritually and so on?

There was a time when I would consider reviews, and consider what other people thought, but then this weird thing happened that altered my perspective. We were doing one of those safety patrol improvisational noise deals, and there were these two guys in attendance that wrote for two different local newspapers. A couple days later we were looking at what they both wrote, and the one guy at the one paper had nothing but nice things to say about the show and even used the word "revolutionary" or something similar. The other guy at the other paper totally hated the show. Like hated to the point of scathing. And I remember one line of what he wrote was "Their idea of fun is just a bunch of nonsense." So that struck me as odd that they would have such different opinions, but it still didn't click in my head right away. But weeks later I was watching a videotape of the show, and whoever taped it did a few shots of the audience.

Anyway, it turned out that these two writers were sitting right next to each other at the show. And for some reason seeing that totally blew me away. And I began to think that maybe there really is no good and no bad. Maybe there really is no definitive right or wrong way of doing something. Maybe everything, and not least of all music, just is. And the exact same experience can affect people in completely opposite ways, and this is a good thing. So there's really not much use in worrying about what people think, because everybody is going to see it a little differently. So to me as long as things are being expressed honestly, once that part is achieved that's pretty much the end of it. As far as whether I read reviews now, I was doing a pretty good job of not reading too much of what people thought of the cd. But then one day I received an e-mail in reference to a certain review, and it was sent to me by a guy who I and many others consider to be the greatest radio personality on the planet earth, so I actually ended up reading that one before I even realized that I probably didn't want to be reading it.

So nothing with me is really set in stone, but the reason I'm not real into reading reviews is because I'm afraid that a very positive review or a very negative review might somehow mess with my head. Even if it's subconsciously, a good review might encourage me to do drastically more of the same and a bad review might encourage me to do something drastically different. And if the idea is to creatively express yourself as honestly as possible, and you've got all these other people's thoughts bouncing around your head, I'm not sure if considering any view other than your own is such a good thing.

What good is a web magazine like Tangzine.com or any publication like it when it comes to reviewing records? I recently had a guy tell me that he only wanted too use my review of his CD (which I gave a less than flattering review of by the way) if it was a good review. The only reason he sends records out, he said, was so that he can have clips for his press kit.

See people like that guy you mentioned are pretty much all over the place. To some people this whole thing has become a press kit. Or a clip. A buzz. A scene. Hype. Merch. Units. And to see the musicians buying into it just about kills me. They're buying into the idea that this stuff is important. And, for starters, good reviews are not important at all, even from the musician as simple-minded careerist perspective. Plenty of stuff is critically praised and doesn't sell well for whatever reason. And even more stuff is criticized by reviewers, and sells millions. All the writers in the world can hate a record, but if it affects people on an emotional level they're gonna go out and buy it.

But as far as what good publications are for reviewing records, I think they're a ton of good just for the sake of having the widest range of opinions possible. Diversity is a good thing I think. But a lot of artists and record labels misunderstand that music reviewers get more cds sent to them than they can possibly listen to. No music reviewer, even at a small zine, should ever feel any obligation to review anything. Ideally the writers should be writing about records that have an affect on them. Writing when they truly have something to say, not because a band wants to use a writer for a press clipping.

A musician's job is to make records honestly. A music reviewer's job is to write about records honestly. No writer should be afraid of what a band might think of his or her review, or afraid that anyone is going to stop talking to them if they don't like a particular record. And no band should get all mad at a reviewer if they didn’t like their record. It’s just a damn record. A lot of people have misunderstood things that I’ve done, and I’ll get people coming up to me saying “Man so and so reviewer totally missed the irony in this or that” and to me that’s totally fine. Let them think whatever they want. I don't care if it's the most misinformed review ever written. Because that's the whole idea isn't it? Having a person make a decision on their own, as opposed to just following what our televisions or our government or our parents tell us to think. Independent thought is good. It is desirable. It is mandatory if we're ever going to evolve. Writers have to be honest and they have to be merciless. They have to be or the whole thing gets corrupted, the exact same way that music has become corrupted. Because people are afraid to take a chance ó afraid to say what they truly feel ó afraid to experiment with something or make waves or whatever. If a band sends a writer a record, and the writer hates it so much that they feel motivated to review it and give it a bad review, then to me that's a good thing.

Music should not be made with the intention of having a particularly good or bad affect on people. If a piece of music that your band recorded can make a writer so angry that they want to tell the world how horrible it is, then to me that's quite an accomplishment. Because good or bad, out of all the cds they received during the week, none of which they have any extra free time to write about, for some reason they wrote about yours. And beyond that, all of us have probably listened to a cd initially and not really liked it, but then we listen to it a few months later and all of a sudden it sounds great to us. Things change. Bands really should be happy that somebody thinks what they do is even worth writing about.

What do you think concerns you most about musicians when they first start out. What advice and/or guidance can you give for the youngsters who look up to rock idols and someday want to follow in their footsteps. How has your own journey through scenes and circles of the music industry and the underground subculture over the years changed your outlook and approach on that very aspiration?

The thing that concerns me most is the reason why people are picking up the instruments in the first place. If they’re doing it for fame or money or girls or boys or drugs or whatever, I would encourage them to please find another way to achieve those things. There are plenty of ways to make a lot of money in this world. There are plenty of ways to get famous and get whatever imaginary attention you think you might need. But if you feel like you’re doing it for the right reasons, by all means do it and don’t be afraid of anything. There are no rules. Play in a country band. Play in a metal band. Play in a jazz band. Try anything. See what it feels like. Learn what not to do. Meet people that, by their own example, teach you what not to do. I’ve known quite a few people that have been rock stars and even a couple who presently are rock stars. The smart ones know that it doesn’t really mean anything. A person starting out can get all tangled up in music theory if they want, or if you really don’t want to study theory – don’t.

There is no evidence to suggest that people who know music theory are any better than a person who just instinctively plays or writes. Overall, I get more enjoyment watching a five year old bang on a piano, then watching somebody who can play scales really well or really quickly. The five year olds are expressing themselves, but the shredders are just showing off something they practiced a lot. Are there shredders that are honestly expressing themselves? Absolutely. Learn what you think the difference is for yourself. Some music industry type person might tell your band that if you dress up in suits with skinny ties your band will be more marketable. Don't listen to them. Unless of course you naturally want to dress that way, then by all means do. Realize that major labels and major artists are not inherently bad, and independent labels and artists are not inherently good. In fact, more and more you see the people who are running these indie labels driving around in limousines and the like, just as if they were the major label types. Are limousines inherently evil? No. I'm just saying that things are not always as they appear.

Speaking of which, a lot of these major labels are losing money at an alarming rate. They're desperate, and they're throwing stuff against the wall just to see what sticks. Do not think that being on a major label or a major subsidiary is the answer, or that they genuinely care one bit about you or your music. Your record might never come out, never get recorded, you might put out a record or two and get dropped, all kinds of things happen. These things are not rare in the music industry ó these things are commonplace. There are no guarantees. These major companies are being bought and sold and restructured all the time. Some of the which companies owns what information that I just mentioned ten minutes ago might already be out of date. By the same token, don't think being on such and such cool indie label is gonna be the answer either, cause there are plenty of them who won't care about you either. Be honest. Be honest with yourself and be honest with the music. If it's meant to work out it will. If it doesn't work out, there are plenty of other things just as important or more important that you can be doing with your life.

What do you see is the most disheartening thing about a self-serving attitude that seems to be rampant in music and how do you personally wrestle with that and try to overcome that as "just another guy with a record out"?

Actually I pretty much view myself as just another guy with a record out, because that's pretty much what I am. And even though this record has worked out really well, and I'll get to make another one if I want to, I'm still just another guy with a record out. There are hundreds of records released every week. Most of those records are noticed and quickly forgotten or barely noticed at all, and I think the records that end up getting some attention has a lot to do with luck. My record might be getting attention right now, but I could have released this very same cd five years ago and it might have been ignored. I could have released it five years from now and the same could have happened. And even though radio stations are playing my cd I think that's all luck too. The directors at radio stations get bombarded by releases every week, and whether or not they add a record to their catalog depends a lot upon where their head is at the exact moment they're listening to it. They haven't got time to listen to cds all the way through and, hypothetically in my case, if the director is in the mood for something laid back and he puts on track one of my cd I wouldn't be one bit surprised if he listens to 30 seconds, turns it off and never puts it on again. Because after awhile their patience gets shot to hell, and if a cd doesn't make a strong first impression on them, it's probably gonna end up in some used cd store or get thrown in the trash. And that's the way it is.

So anybody who gets on the radio who doesn't have one of these mammoth corporations behind them is extremely lucky. But on the other hand, having a successful cd or a successful anything is really not that big of a deal either. The selfish attitude that prevails in the music industry is a joke. It's an embarrassment. I'm no bleeding heart by any stretch, but there are major problems in the world right now. There are people being sent to war to kill other people, supposedly over money, or oil, or religion, or national security, or operation this or that or whatever. There are people starving, people getting beat up cause they look different, blah blah blah into infinity. Ten percent of the people in this country control ninety percent of the wealth. Many of them have stock in or are closely associated with those big companies that control the entertainment industry. The whole thing is falling apart - or in the eyes of these big companies, things are just now starting to come together. So this is really not the time to be selfish, and not the time to be walking around feeling all important and high and mighty cause you managed to put out a successful little round piece of metal and some plastic. In the grand scheme of things, it amounts to pretty much nothing. Anyway, thank you for the good questions and I apologize if any of what I said got to be a little long.

posted 9.07.02

2002 White Elephant Productions