Hard News: Rough times in the trade
223 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 9 Newer→ Last
-
Martin Lindberg, in reply to
I don’t see them personally progressing their brand/reputation online.
Somehow I believe your examples of Danielle Steele, Dan Brown and Tom Clancy would be far more likely to manage that exercise than J.D. Salinger or Marcel Proust (ignoring that they are dead for the sake of argument) if that really became accepted as essential for writers to succeed.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Why?
-
bmk,
I mean NIN hated a lot of their own fans ('March of the Pigs') yet built a cult following. I can see authors who likewise shun their fans, live in obscurity Thomas Pynchon style developing a far committed fan base than some author who appears on every talk show and turns up at every fan signing. Cult following is tied up with the object seeming unobtainable or obscure.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Why?
Because they manage the exercise already, while Salinger and Proust never did. But your examples (and our counterexamples) are meaningless. There are in fact good writers who are excellent self-promoters, probably none more so than Neil Gaiman. What beggars belief is the idea that we should somehow be glad that marketing will become the be-all and end-all more than it already is.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
You seem to think it’s all about marketing and nothing to do with substance. That’s your misconception but not what I was talking about above. It’s actually about engagement, creativity and diversification.
ETA
Because they manage the exercise already,
What does this mean? They manage what exercise? They are purely about marketing, with very large budgets, and I doubt they manage any aspect of it - it's all done for/to them by their publishers.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
That's your misconception but not what I was talking about above. It's actually about engagement, creativity and diversification.
Talk me through how Marcel Proust makes a living in your brave new world.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
No, Giovanni. I won't do that. I don't know why you're so disdainful of either me or change, but you are becoming rather snide and personal and I'm not playing that game.
-
Fine. But for the record I am far from disdainful of change.
ETA: I owe you an answer for this:
"What does this mean? They manage what exercise? They are purely about marketing, with very large budgets, and I doubt they manage any aspect of it - it's all done for/to them by their publishers."
What I meant is that they regularly attend all the myriad promotional junkets that megastardom requires, it's not as if they sit back and let the publishers do all the work. So they manage fine.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
creating a valued authorial “eye” (as opposed to “voice” for writers) which means getting paid for who you are and what you bring to your photography, rather than for the photo itself.
Seems to me that the ‘personality’ business model works well if you’re already famous, but how you’re supposed to get there if you’re not, is unclear. Was someone asking how would Ansell Adams do if he was putting out a calendar now? I think he might suffer the same fate as the world-famous violinist who had a go at busking – and almost no one stopped to listen. Context matters. Without “gatekeepers” (publishers, agencies, etc.) to promote new talent, it’s hard to see how anyone can succeed. The internet and twitter offer great new ways to connect with fans you already have, but unless you are very lucky and go viral*, you can put your brilliant work out there and no one will ever find it.
*Lily Allen and Justin Bieber are examples of lucky ones in the music business
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
The internet and twitter offer great new ways to connect with fans you already have, but unless you are very lucky and go viral*, you can put your brilliant work out there and no one will ever find it.
Actually, I think quality gets found, but it needs to be displayed in the right context. If that violinist had played wearing a disguise in a concert hall, my guess is that people would have noticed he was good. And actually, to give social networks their due - they are pretty good at promoting unknowns on merit (although there are those like Jaron Lanier who would argue that their taste trends conservative). They're not as good at paying for the stuff, however.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
I think quality gets found, but it needs to be displayed in the right context.
That was precisely my point.
ETA
to give social networks their due – they are pretty good at promoting unknowns on merit
May be true up to a point but relies on the crowd to judge what has merit. Will anyone remember Justin Bieber in future generations? OK maybe it's unfair to take potshots at popstars. But if the crowd is the only judge, every human artist working today will be overshadowed by That Cat From Japan.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
May be true up to a point but relies on the crowd to judge what has merit.
The crowd includes critics (and not necessarily just professional ones) who in turn have a following. There is a reason why traditional media companies want in - they realise that social networks do some of the functions of arts and culture promotion that used to belong in the mainstream very well indeed.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Lily Allen
That's Lily Cooper now.
-
webweaver, in reply to
The internet and twitter offer great new ways to connect with fans you already have, but unless you are very lucky and go viral*, you can put your brilliant work out there and no one will ever find it.
I think Amanda Fucking Palmer is an absolutely perfect example of this new breed of self-promoters - as anyone who saw her presentation(s) at Webstock this year will attest.
Try, for example, Googling "amanda palmer" - every single result on pages 1-8 are for AfuckingP. That's pretty impressive.
Amanda Palmer Says Twitter ‘Completely Changed My Career’ - watch the video - it's exactly what we're talking about.
Amanda Palmer talks new music paradigm, blogging, Twitter and life - Webstock presentation
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Talk me through how Marcel Proust makes a living in your brave new world.
The way that talented artists with rich folks always have, I would think. Proust never left home and when his mother died he received a large inheritance that kept him while he did his greatest work.
That business model works in any economy :-)
-
recordari, in reply to
Thomas Pynchon style
Just read Inherent Vice. Seems there was a lot of weed wherever he's been hiding.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
The way that talented artists with rich folks always have, I would think. Proust never left home and when his mother died he received a large inheritance that kept him while he did his greatest work.
From which he never earned a dime anyway, since he died before publishing it. I would have also accepted "John Milton sold the rights to Paradise Lost for five pounds" or "James Joyce was a successful and well-known writer but still needed the help of a wealthy benefactor to write Ulysess". Yet those works continue to generate an income for the publishing industry and for critics and commentators, even now that they're out of copyright. (Well, not Ulysses, which isn't yet.)
My point being that the commercial model gave commodity value to the works themselves, which defined the career of professional writer, whether you hacked it or not. To say that there is no longer going to be value in the actual works except as vehicles for ancillary activities like speaking tours and merchandising (or other forms of "engagement" and "innovation" open to the smartest entrepreneurs) means breaking a very important social contract - which is not something I think we should do glibly. I would also contend that how to ensure that intellectuals, journalists and artists can have at least some expectation of earning a living is as much our problem as it is theirs.
-
My original point in using Salinger and Proust was that they were reclusive and would have been unlikely to succeed in a world where you need to become a brand and diversify.
What succeed means is, of course, another story.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
My original point in using Salinger and Proust was that they were reclusive and would have been unlikely to succeed in a world where you need to become a brand and diversify.
Sure, but it's not just that. I mean take Kafka, who didn't even want his stuff published - pretty hard to imagine him spending half the day licking the balls of his Twitter followers. But there is still further value in his works having commodity value in a capitalist society. It means they can get published in translation, or critically annotatated, or edited (a key function in posthumous works) because those professions are rewarded by the system.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
I think Amanda Fucking Palmer is an absolutely perfect example of this new breed of self-promoters – as anyone who saw her presentation(s) at Webstock this year will attest.
Yes...and I think she's amazing and wonderful, but she wasn't an unknown: back in the Dresden Dolls days she had a following from live performances and events, and also a record company which presumably promoted her.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
The way that talented artists with rich folks always have, I would think. Proust never left home and when his mother died he received a large inheritance that kept him while he did his greatest work.
That business model works in any economy :-)
Seriously? I did not know that. So if he never earned money from his writing, he was not really a "professional writer", was he? He was a talented amateur whose work people later found important enough to preserve.
By the way, Russ, have a great day licking the balls of your Twitter followers :-D
-
Martin Lindberg, in reply to
(aargh, I did have a post, but this site is pretty iPhone, and, I assume, iPad unfriendly to copy & paste and editing. Had to give up)
Russell, you Micro$oft tool! ;-)
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
Maybe not Mao's China or Pol Pot's Kampuchea. Proust would have been slaughtered, on general principles.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
(aargh, I did have a post, but this site is pretty iPhone, and, I assume, iPad unfriendly to copy & paste and editing. Had to give up)
Russell, you Micro$oft tool! ;-)
Heh. Yes, editing in comments windows with iDevices is fitful at best. CactusLab (award-winning iOS developers) are a little ahead of what Safari can handle. I'm looking towards a fix.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
The Amanda Palmer phenomenon way eclipses the Dresden Dolls. In fact, I heard of the Dolls through learning about Palmer.
Yes, she did have a record contract with Roadrunner records which she finally got out of in April 2010 after much arguing and even released a single called "Please Drop Me":
When the Dresden Dolls got signed we were able to take advantage of what a major label was able to do for a weird band like us: We got radio play and they did a really good job promoting us overseas. Nowadays the game has changed so much that I would never advise a band like us to sign up with a company like that.
It's been so disappointing since my solo record came out in September-- they decided to do the absolute minimum to promote it. I think they looked at it as an investment just in case something amazing happened by accident. But what has remained true in my career for the last 10 years is that fucking nothing happens by accident. You tour and you work hard and you take care of your fans and very real things lead to other real things. There's never been some fantastic fluke or break in my career, it has all been very slow and steady.
Now the party is over and Roadrunner don't have the infrastructure to help me with what I actually need to do as an artist. I feel an extraordinary amount of sympathy for anybody working at a major label right now because their lives are over. It can't feel very good to have had your job for 15 years-- with a mortgage to pay and kids to put through college-- knowing your company is destined to go down.
Giovanni called it "your brave new world" but it's not mine - it's here and it's not going away. Gatekeepers can turn away as many talented artists as they promote, for all sorts of reasons. Decca and the Beatles is just one example - "Guitar groups are on the way out, Mr Epstein". For every musician/writer/artist/photographer who makes it big, there are always going to be hundreds who don't and not necessarily because they lack talent or ability. Maybe they're brunette and the label wants a blond to front the band, or they're a children's writer but the publisher already has its quota. How else do you explain Britney Spears and Westlife?
As Martin alluded to above, success can be variable and is down to how you define it. "Paying the mortgage and feeding the family" is one level of success. Non-monetary recognition by one's peers may be another. You may be satisfied with that, or you may be driven to go for more. That's a subjective thing. Being the "best in the world" or the "best you can be" may be different things to you.
What stands out to me is the difference between managing your own path or having it managed for you. There is no one true business model that will fit everyone, and there will still be music labels and publishers and managers and artists who choose to use them, but I think they'll have to operate very differently to their current practice simply because they are no longer the only gatekeepers to their fields. As an individual, you can compete - if you choose to and have the goods and drive to do so.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.