Converse Sneaks Into Music Biz by George Ziemann — October 7, 2010 My first reaction to the story of Converse entering the music business was one of dismay. Do we really need more corporate interference with art? The more I think about it, though, the answer is that it's certainly better for artists than America's Got Talent. Quoted in the article is author and media critic Douglas Rushkoff, who says, “Artists are finding the only way to achieve any financial safety is to become a lapdog of the great corporations, just like the great painters did in the Renaissance, when it became impossible to sustain oneself as an artist without a patron.” The saving grace of the story is that this is apparently what Converse is trying to do, become a patron of the arts. They're building a recording studio in Brooklyn. "After applying online, bands deemed dedicated and needy enough will be able to record whatever they want there. No need to prepare rhymes for 'Chuck Taylor' — Converse says it will have no influence on the music, the artists will keep ownership rights, and, as with many brand-as-patron projects, the songs aren’t intended to be used in ads." The additional bonus for the artists is free recording time. "The idea is that helping new bands will build good will for the brand (and generate future sales) and also give Converse an advantage over all the other companies out there competing for young eyeballs." I remember when the idea of sponsorship was a new thing back in the mid-1970s. The musicians I was working with then found the idea rather repulsive, with the possible exception of being tied to something that you already were implicity endorsing. For example, if your guitarist was building a pyramid of empty Budweiser cans on top of his guitar amp, what was the difference if the company decided to help you out? That wasn't selling out, it was simply payback for the free advertising you were already giving them. But we all agreed that, in that situation at least, letting Miller pay your touring expenses was to become a sell-out. So seeing the words of Bethany Cosentino of the band Best Coast was a little dismaying. “Music is everywhere now, and if you have it tied to a brand, there’s nothing wrong with that." There doesn't seem to be any consideration given there for whether or not you care for the product, just take the money. I think that's one of the indicators of the decidedly unpleasant direction music has taken in the last couple of decades. However, unlike a lot of brands attempting to buy their status as "cool," Converse sneakers have been onstage since the Ramones. It's certainly a helluva lot better than the horrid "360 deals" that artists have been signing with record labels lately, which takes a percentage of every possible revenue source that an artist can muster up. This has put the labels in the business of seeking endorsements for their signed acts, most of which have little concern for any consideration other than money, and many of which have erased the ability of artists to write songs about social injustice without being painfully hypocritical. The business was bad enough when record labels managed to sign artists to multi-year deals with onerous contracts which, combined with highly questionable accounting procedures, assured the artists would never get a penny beyond their initial advance, and most likely end their contracts in debt to the record label. Artists learned that they could make more money from touring and merchandising (t-shirts, etc.) than they ever could from recording. I don't recall who said it, but I recall another article in the NY Times a few years ago which pointed out that Bruce Springsteen grossed more from three nights at the Meadowlands than in a year's worth of record sales. So the record labels decided to take a cut of that, too. Which is where the idea of the 360 deal was born. That's why more artists than ever can now be seen pimping everything from soft drinks to sweat-shop produced clothing. Social consciousness is dead. It doesn't pay. There is a difference with the Converse idea though, as described by Geoff Cottrill, a marketing officer at the shoe company. “On the street are all the big brands of the world — Coke, Apple, the car companies — standing there waiting for the garage door to open and the cool band to step out so they can tell them they’re going to make them famous. But I would venture to say that inside those garages those kids are already wearing our shoes.” Converse is already part of rock and roll. Cosentino of Best Coast actually redeems her earlier statement by pointing out that "I’ve been wearing Converse since I was a child." Which leaves only one other point of contention. Ben Sisario, the author of the NY Times article, says, "It may be too soon to tell whether the patronage of Red Bull, Mountain Dew and Converse will warp the sound of indie rock." This prompts me to remind that "indie" is not a genre. It's an abbreviation for "independent." So the meaning of "indie" has already been warped. It doesn't matter if it's Sony or Red Bull pulling your strings; it's the mere presence of the strings that determines whether or not you're still indie or just another corporate pawn.

Related Article Looking to a Sneaker for a Band’s Big Break – New York Times