Rick Rubin: In the Studio

by Jake Brown

ECW Press

August 2009, Trade paperback, 254 pages, $17.95

By Kirby Fields

cover art
 Amazon

I’m torn between giving Rick Rubin: In the Studio the benefit of the doubt and crushing it.

On the one hand, its author, Jake Brown, has 20 published books to his credit, including works with or about such superstars as Prince, Dr. Dre, Mötley Crüe, Rick James, and the Red Hot Chili Peppers (more on them in a bit, much more). From the looks of things, he appears to be a musician himself—his bio features a picture of him posing with a guitar—and he is the proud papa of a 10-year-old record label, Versailles Records, whose catalogue swells with “Millennium Tributes” to Stone Temple Pilots, Kiss, Guns ‘N’ Roses, The Cult, Bon Jovi, and not only Van Halen but also Sammy Hagar and David Lee Roth, the latter two presumably drawing from their extensive solo material.

Clearly, Brown has parlayed his passion for music into a career, which, after all, is what it’s all about. If all of this doesn’t exactly make him untouchable, it at the very least endows him with a ready-made rebuttal when I slam him: “So, you don’t like my book, huh? Remind me again how many you’ve written”. Talk about getting crushed.

On the other hand, one would think that 20 publications would eliminate sentences like this: “After a year of writing produced 150 completed demos, by the band’s count [Linkin Park’s], Rubin proudly felt, heading into principal recording, ‘These are really beautiful songs. They’ve outdone themselves’”. Or this: “It’s not easy to peak Rubin’s interest”. Or, finally: “Self-described as a music fan, Rick Rubin’s own distaste for his industry had the potential to change it from the inside”. At times I felt like I wasn’t reading a book so much as I was working through practice questions for the SAT: The best revision of the sentence above is (a) Self-describing himself as a music fan, Rick Rubin’s own distaste for his industry had the potential to change it from the inside; (b) A music fan by self-description, Rick Rubin’s own distaste for his industry had the potential to change it from the inside; (c) A self-described music fan, Rick Rubin had the potential to change his industry from the inside; or (d) leave as is. (Correct answer: C.) I proofread enough during my day job. I’d rather not be required to do so when I’m off the clock, as well.

Part of my antagonism toward the book stems from my feeling that it’s not so much as “written” as it is “researched”. I lack the scientific proof to support this claim, but my hunch is that, proper nouns aside, the most popular phrase in the book is “according to”, which is then followed by “MTV”, “VH1”, or Rolling Stone, to name a few of the bigger sources, or Blabbermouth, Papermag, or Guitar World Acoustic, to list some of the lesser known.

As you can probably tell, “.com” often appears at the ends of these titles, which prevents me from defending Brown by falling back on a romantic vision of him spending late nights at the library scrolling through the microfiche. Instead, I’m left with the all-too-mundane image of him clicking through fan sites and poring over “Slayerized.com” (a fine site, I’m sure, so settle down all of you Slayer fans, and don’t make me quote the beginning of Reign in Blood). In fact, though, drawing from Slayerized isn’t the problem; the problem is that he lets Slayerized do the work for him.

Rick Rubin: In the Studio is a cut-and-paste job, a stringing together of long quote after long quote, the insights from the author few and far between. Flipping through the book even now I’m hard pressed to find a noteworthy passage that isn’t ensconced in quotation marks. Oh, wait. Here’s one that’ll have to do. On page 137, he refers to the Red Hot Chili Peppers’ Californication as “disarming and brutally beautiful”. That didn’t require any kind of acknowledgement.

The appeal of the rest of the book depends on how old you are. As a man in his mid-30s, I was most drawn to the section on the ‘80s, which covers the Beastie Boys, Run DMC, Public Enemy, the Less Than Zero soundtrack, the Cult, Danzig, and, yes, Slayer. Rubin’s own insights throughout this section are the most revelatory, particularly this little nugget about how he (in cahoots with the Beasties, Run DMC, and the Ladies Love Cool James) altered the rap game for all time: “Before Def Jam [Rubin’s label that he started with Russell Simmons], hip hop records were typically really long, and they rarely had a hook [think Grandmaster Flash’s “The Message”].

These songs didn’t deliver in the way the Beatles did. By making our rap records sound more like pop songs, we changed the form”. Like most lasting observations, this one is both profound and simple, a point that I’ve long taken for granted and one that I will think about now every time I listen to Jay Z, Q Tip, or Eminem, who have all profited mightily from Rubin’s innovation.

The section on the mid-to-late ‘90s also delivers, driven as it is by a (relatively) lengthy treatment of the career-reviving work that Rubin did with Johnny Cash. But, even so, if you’ve followed Rubin or Cash at all, there’s nothing new here. Rubin made Johnny believe in himself again; they painstakingly chose songs that Cash could internalize; they recorded and recorded and recorded and only settled for the choicest cuts. Cash’s myth reiterates itself, but it hardly grows.

I’m going to sound like an old fogy, but the rest of the book won’t interest many people who were born before Reagan’s second term. Do we really need the inside scoop on Audioslave, Weezer, System of a Down, or Linkin Park? OK, so Tom Morello believes that as good as Rubin is at producing, he “has never understood what I do as a lead guitar player”. That’s almost interesting. But to devote eight pages to Audioslave’s first record and scarcely three to the Dixie Chicks’ Taking the Long Way demonstrates that Brown’s priorities are out of whack.

Full disclosure: I’ve never actually heard Audioslave’s first record or Taking the Long Way, but I know enough to know that history will treat Audioslave as a footnote to Soundgarden and Rage Against the Machine, and Taking the Long Way will be remembered as three women’s courageous response to the jingoism that threatened their career. Which is the story that you would rather hear? Here’s a hint: It’s not the one that Brown would rather tell.

Which brings me to the Red Hot Chili Peppers. You really have to like the Red Hot Chili Peppers to invest in this book. And I mean really like them. Rubin has collaborated with the Chili Peppers on five albums, and Brown extensively sites sources about each and every one (yes, even One Hot Minute). Pages about the Chili Peppers account for just over 20 percent of the book’s total. This is great if you’re a fan, but if you lean toward “eh” when it comes to Anthony, Flea, and the Boys, it’s hard to get all jacked up for a chapter about By the Way, especially when it includes such scintillating detail as this: “Using various Taylor acoustic guitars for the album, [Chili Pepper guitarist John] Frusciante’s amplifier rig included a 200-watt Marshall Major and a 100-watt Marshall Super Bass, one of which he usually ran in a stereo setup with a Fender Showman Blackface guitar amp pushing the Marshall”.

And if I had to read one more time about Anthony Kiedis advocating for “good energy in the universe” I was going to chuck the book across the room. What does any of this have to do with Rick Rubin? That’s an excellent question.

In the end, the book does score a few points for being current. The last album discussed is Metallica’s latest release, Death Magnetic, a record that I was disappointed with the first time around. After reading all about it in Brown’s book, I realized that I was probably right and didn’t bother to give it another listen.

The real question is, now that Rick Rubin: In the Studio is in the rearview, can Versailles Records’ “Millennium Tribute” to Metallica be far behind?

— 16 September 2009
 
Bookmark and Share
Share

Comments

I suggest that Kirby Fields should spply his treasure trove of editorial skills to his own writing.

Yes, all of the passages cited had errors in them.  But Fields’ proposed revision of the sentence that so offended him was incorrect as well.

“‘Self-described as a music fan, Rick Rubin’s own distaste for his industry had the potential to change it from the inside’ (italics mine). At times I felt like I wasn’t reading a book so much as I was working through practice questions for the SAT: The best revision of the italicized portion of the sentence above is (a) Self-describing himself as a music fan; (b) A music fan by self-description; (c) A self-described music fan; or (d) leave as is. (Correct answer: C.) I proofread enough during my day job. I’d rather not be required to do so when I’m off the clock, as well.”

The correct answer would have been (not listed as an option) NONE OF THE ABOVE.

As it stands, Fields’ amended sentence explains how Rick Rubin’s DISTASTE for the music industry (not Rick Rubin himself) is a self-described music fan.

I’m just sayin’.

Granted, I probably have some errors in my writing as well.  But I’m not trumpeting my years as a copy editor or saying I’m a proper and prefessional writer.

Comment by John from Atlanta — September 16, 2009 @ 6:53 am

Hi, John.

Of course, you’re absolutely right. 

The correct version would have been something along the lines of “A self-described music fan, Rick Rubin had the potential to change the music industry from the inside” (or some such thing).

I knew I was leaving myself open to this kind of criticism when I started picking on his prose.  Damned if that one didn’t get by.

How embarrassing.  I guess that’s what I get for trying to be cute.

Thanks for reading.

Comment by Kirby Fields from NY — September 16, 2009 @ 7:21 am

My favorite sentence is “Part of my antagonism toward the book stems from my feeling that it’s not so much as ‘written’ as it is ‘researched’.

Maybe it’s that i imagine someone someone doing little finger quotes when saying “written” and “researched,” which is hilarious.  Maybe it’s that, well, books should be researched.  Most biographies or works or non-fiction ARE in fact extensively researched. Writing and research are go together like tea and honey.

So what were you trying to say here?  And why the word “antagonism”?  Be simple and clear.

Unfortunately, this book tells us little about Rubin that we haven’t heard before.  It reads like a string of Google searches copied and pasted to the page.

Comment by McEnroe — September 16, 2009 @ 9:46 am

I always get a kick out of ‘critics’ like old Kirb who can’t get their own work published so opt instead to go after those who can, which is the bottom line here (I researched Amazon.com and couldn’t find a SINGLE published work by this supposed literary expert.)  I usually NEVER respond to critics who review my work, but felt I had no choice but to in this instance, given that Mr. Fields chose to attack me personally (going after my record label?  BTW dude, its ‘MILLENNIUM TRIBUTE’ series not ‘MILLENNIAL’ Mr. Editor), and that has proved a very popular series with rock fans btw. 

First off, while I appreciate the LARGELY positive feedback this book has critically recieved (The New York Post, Blog Critics, etc), I also respect the opinion of those who feel that my efforts to properly document Mr. Rubin’s career (a contractual requirement of releasing this book, btw) could have taken away from my opportunity to add more of my own narrative commentary on the impact of his catalog. 

I tried to be diligent in properly crediting all sources I used because that’s just credible writing 101, and in certain instances, talked in greater depth about Rubin’s longer-term collaborations (Red Hot Chili Peppers, Johnny Cash) because it was called for by the sheer number of records he (Rubin) made with those bands.  In the case of the Red Hot Chili Peppers, yes, I am a fan, but more importantly, the amount of detail I tried to provide on the band’s recording process is the result of how many interviews were available to draw from, hence the detail (Oh, and Mr. Fields, the technical detail of John Frusciante’s recording process in the studio reflects the POINT OF THE BOOK, i.e. its title and what I was trying to explore).  There is a delicate balance to be struck for sure between the amount of technical detail and focus on the broader inner-personal relationships between Rubin and his artists (key to his countless successes), and I on that point did my best to try and include as thorough a commentary from the bands as I could in conjunction with Rubin to fully explore this process.  If you felt that was excessive, you obviously missed entirely the point of WHY artists like Johnny Cash felt that ‘Rick made me have faith in myself again.’

That was the point of this book, to explore how Rubin inspires such faith in any and all of the artists he works with, and I feel satisfied that was accomplished.  Your hostility toward my work-‘I was going to chuck the book across the room’- is puzzling, and I’m sorry (but thankful you’re in the minority) you were so put off by this read, but the bottom line is I feel proud of being able to celebrate the legacy of such a profoundly important producer.  That, and the GENERALLY VERY FAVORABLE critical response that this book has recieved is enough for me. 

PS- if you’d like to ‘research’ the latter futher, please feel free to visit my publisher’s site, http://www.ecwpress.com/books/rick_rubin

Comment by Jake Brown — September 17, 2009 @ 11:23 pm

DAAAMN the author himself left a comment SWEEEET!!!!  I would love to get this book and read through BY THE WAY and STADIUM ARCADIUM.  IM sure it’s a fine read and rhcp fans around the world and other music lovers will be delighted to read this… THANKS!!!!

Comment by FruscianteFan — September 18, 2009 @ 7:49 am

Hi, Jake.

Thanks for the impassioned response.  I half thought that I might hear from you.  I think it only fair that PopMatters provides a forum for you to respond.

The errors that you and others have noted are embarrassing enough to be mortifying.  They are unforgivable, and they, unfortunately, damage the credibility of the piece.  Not to make excuses, but this is a regrettable byproduct of Web-based publishing.  Believe me, I want nothing more than to run a correction, but that’s not going to happen.

There is no need to run through a point-by-point response to your post because (1) I talked about a few of the issues in the piece itself and (2) this doesn’t need to descend into a petty back-n-forth.

But I did want to let you know that, despite the admittedly glib tone, I do not take a negative review lightly.  I like most things, and I actually try to steer clear of things that I don’t.  I like Rick Rubin.  I was looking forward to reading your book.

As I mentioned at the outset, I was torn between appreciating the work that you had done and being critical of that work.  The essay was basically my way of working through those feelings.  Obviously, in the end, the more critical side won.

I debated with myself about including any reference to your label and the “Millennium Tributes.”  In the end, though, I determined that the recordings were an extension of my central criticism of the book—namely, that it was reappropriating work that had already been done—so I deemed it germane.

I’m pleased that you have some sweet reviews to offset my sour.

Hopefully readers will pick it up and decide for themselves.

Yours,

Old Kirb

Comment by Kirby — September 18, 2009 @ 8:54 am

Round two!

Kirb, ya got it wrong again buddy!

First off, my ‘Millennium Tribute Series’ is not a re-appropriation of any sort, its re-envisionings by artists of the same era who also share a love of the genre, and enjoy celebrating it with their fan bases, reaching out to a new generation of fans, and frankly, I think the calibre of artists we’ve had participate in the series speaks for itself.  Our tributes have collectively featured current/former members of members of platinum and Grammy winning acts including Aerosmith, Heart, Prince & the Revolution, Poison, Fuel, Racer’s X, Megadeth, Circle Jerks, Motley Crue, Guns N’ Roses, Ozzy Osbourne Band, Exodus, Dangerous Toys, Rockstar: Supernova, Saigon Kick, Hanoi Rocks, Europe, Cinderella, Whitesnake, Living Colour, The Scorpions, Ratt, Steelheart, Michael Shanker Group, Skid Row, Dio, Jetboy, TNT, Warrant, Enuff Znuff, Quiet Riot, Dokken, Brides of Destruction, Black Sabbath, Lynch Mob, Riot, Rough Cutt, Love/Hate, L.A. Guns, The Scream, Lillian Axe, P.M. Dawn, Union, Queensryche, Kansas, Badlands, W.A.S.P., White Lion, Anthrax, Zebra, Journey, Faster Pussycat, Night Ranger, Salty Dog, Smashing Pumpkins, Machinehead, Faith No More, Blue Murder, King Cobra, Black Sabbath, Kiss, Metal Church, Kix, as well as Alannah Myles, Jeff Healey, Tiffany, Jane Child, Darlene Love, Jasy Andrews, Deniece Williams, Michel’le, and Olympic Medal Winner and International Skating Star Nancy Kerrigan among many others.  So I think that record speaks for itself, as does the Tens of THOUSANDS of albums we’ve sold over the past 10 years to that fan base.

Re my ‘reappropriating work that had already been done’, Rick Rubin RARELY gives interviews, and so I had no choice but to source those interviews he has given in the course of including his commentary.  NONE of it was ‘copied’, rather selectively chosen as different excerpts applied to different chapters covering bands he’d worked with, and quoted appropriately.  It suprises me that you called it a cut-and-paste job, because that’s simply not accurate.  If you go to each of those individual interviews, you’ll see they cover a wide array of different topics, and were yes sewn into coherent quotes where appropriate re the Chili Peppers, Cash, etc, but in no way blanketly taken and pasted in.  I might also point out that its VERY COMMON in music biographies to source interviews artists have given to the media in the past in the course of constructing a book’s narrative. 

I might further add that your nonsense about my droning on about the Red Hot Chili Peppers while only giving the Dixie Chicks 3 pages of coverage had simply to do with what interviews were available to me to draw from.  RUBIN only talked for about a page of dialogue about the DC, so that’s what I had to work with.  Similarly, the band only spoke in blurbs here and there about the making of the record, so that’s what I had to work with.  I also think you demonstrated a wee bit of bias when you hailed the Dixie Chicks’ LP (you’re clearly a fan- something you criticized me for throughout your review) as having made an album that will “be remembered as three women’s courageous response to the jingoism that threatened their career,” while in the same time dismissing Audioslave’s records as something ” history will treat…as a footnote to Soundgarden and Rage Against the Machine.”  I find this laughable when you in the same paragraph concede you’ve never even heard the Audioslave record.  That seems a little mis-informed of an opinion to reach having not even listened to the music your criticizing. 

Furthermore, to call my priorities ‘Out of wack’ because I only had 3 pages of material on the Dixie Chicks- explained above as the result of how little they talked about the making of their album- just makes you look that much sillier.  I have no problem with you taking issue with how much time I may have spent on certain acts that RUBIN HIMSELF cherished working with, and as such, the narrative warranted extended focus on, but at least have your facts straight.  Rick Rubin spent TEN YEARS working with Johnny Cash, and ALMOST TWENTY working with the Chili Peppers.  As such, I was obligated to spend longer time on both collaborations to properly reflect Rubin’s passion and love for both bands, and visa versa.

Anyway, I’ll leave it be from here, but felt compelled based on your personal attacks re my record label to clarify for readers some of the facts you just got A.) wrong, and B.) that you didn’t do professional damage to my label’s reputation, which I have worked tirelessly to build and maintain over the years, even in this ugly climate for labels. 

Good luck to you sir, hopefully you’ll take a more professional (and therein less personal) tone in future coverage of other writers’ works, and if you’re going to be critical, AT least be accurate (and grammatically/editorially correct) in that criticism.  Regards, Jake Brown, Author ‘Rick Rubin: in the Studio,’ Founder/Owner Versailles Records

Comment by Jake Brown — September 18, 2009 @ 11:35 am

I appreciate all the reviews posted by PopMatters but ultimately form my own opinion about authors. From the exchange above, it is fairly telling that unlike the author, Kirby NEVER uses something so PEDESTRIAN as ALL CAPS to communicate his POINT OF VIEW. This seems a better litmus test for talent than Amazon.com, where, by the way, I buy my cat litter.

Comment by Lettie H from NYC — September 18, 2009 @ 12:50 pm

— PopMatters sponsor —

I’m done replying, I just felt compelled to further clarify some points based off Kirby’s reply to my initial response- I’m already laughing out loud reading this first sentence back to myself.  Anyway, I appreciate some of his points, disagree with others, and LOVE how interactive this forum is, so appreciate everyone who has read/replied with their own input because, in essence, Rick Rubin is that provocative with how cutting-edge his production is- regardless of who he’s working with.  In the end of the day, that book WAS a tribute of sorts to my favorite producer of all time, and I’m happy with how it came out, and as I said in my prior replies, have been happy with the overall feedback critically, which makes Kirby’s review an exception.  That is good enough for me, and your point is taken that its easy to get defensive when standing behind something I’m as proud of as this book.  That will be my final word on it, I hope everyone who has or will read this diatribe between all of us above has a great weekend, I’m VERY much looking forward to mine!

Comment by Jake Brown — September 18, 2009 @ 3:49 pm

I followed Brown’s suggestion and looked up his book on Amazon.com. The reader review, “Hagiography constructed from existing interviews” includes critiques similar to Mr. Fields.

Also following Brown’s suggestion, I searched Amazon.com for the titles listed under the name of the critic of the New York Post review that Brown counted as part of his “LARGELY positive feedback.” In his own words, I “couldn’t find a SINGLE published work by this supposed literary expert.” 

Interesting double-standard.

Comment by Jaime from KS — September 18, 2009 @ 4:17 pm

Fields shows himself here to be a gentleman and wit; authors should be so lucky to have readers like him. I am sorry that Jake Brown is too insecure to take the criticism like a professional.

Comment by Jaux from Los Angeles — September 20, 2009 @ 5:09 pm

Not when the criticism is rife with personal attacks and factual inaccuracies that have to be addressed, sorry pal

Comment by Jake Brown — September 21, 2009 @ 3:40 pm

Add a comment

Please enter your name and a valid email address. Your email address will not be displayed. It is required only to prevent comment spam.

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?