|
Post by RickW on Mar 11, 2020 14:22:35 GMT -5
Those are two entirely different skill sets. I spent years working with sales and marketing people in the trade show business, and years working with creative people in theatre. Someone who could do both? Well? Ha! This is a very different world. It’s not like you’re taking out full page ads in the NY times, making pitches in boardrooms, or even standing on street corners with signs. There is an absolute wealth of information on the various ways and means, the various kinds of ads. But, you’re right, where most folks fall down is that they fail to understand that they’re not just an artist anymore, they have to do the business side.
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Mar 11, 2020 14:35:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Mar 11, 2020 14:43:36 GMT -5
These days, there are a few people in most creative endeavors who do well financially and a large mass of others who would starve if they depended on it for a living. I'm not sure how different it really was in the past. Poetry is an exception, of course. You can still rake in the big bucks there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2020 14:45:25 GMT -5
As technology has "democratized" the ability to produce and distribute music or the written word, has it not also "democratized" gatekeeping? Aren't we all gatekeepers now? I'm not saying we are. Just posing the question. Sure. In the sense that there's a whole lot more garbage to sort through in order to get to something worthwhile. When guys like me can record and sell a record, you know there's some breakdown in the gatekeeping system. I mean that. Up through the '70s or even into the '80s, there's no way in hell a record company (a gatekeeper) would've let me make a record on their dime. For me, for better or worse, technology didn't level the playing field. It eliminated it. Then again, I didn't do a record expecting to make money (or even break even) or even achieve some measure of fame. I just wanted to share my music. But I know some musicians (and you folks probably know some too) who think their self-produced record will get them somewhere. There are a handful of indie-artist-makes-it-big stories and that is what they latch into. I kept my day job largely because a) I was better at it than music and b) I like to eat regular meals.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Mar 11, 2020 14:49:25 GMT -5
"But I know (and you folks probably know some too) musicians who think their self-produced record will get them somewhere." I not only know some, I once was one.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Mar 11, 2020 15:03:46 GMT -5
To some degree there have always been both avenues toward success/survival for all artists/craftsmen who have tried to survive by their creativity. I remember when I met David Mosher. I was doing an art fair in Toledo and, though I couldn't see them behind my booth, I could hear some really good musicians -- a hammered dulcimer and a guitarist -- who were hired by the art fair to provide ambiance. When they stopped playing and I had no customers, I ventured around behind my booth and found the two musicians taking a break. I introduced myself and complimented the guitarist -- David. After some conversation, I asked him what he did for a living. "Music", he said. I felt kind of silly. I mean, for 15-20 years to that point, I had been making a living as a potter in a sub-culture of the "Wild West" of art fairs that had developed as a work-around to the twin gatekeepers of academia and gallery. Why it hadn't occurred to me that there were parallel means of making a living from other creative pursuits and their gatekeepers, I don't know. Probably because I worshipped the world of music and musicians that the gatekeepers of record labels and radio had presented me. At that point in time I was only a decade or so into collecting more homemade music and meeting more musicians of the decidedly NOT pop kind. At that point, though, even those musicians I loved were still the "product" of record labels and contracts and distribution infrastructure. It was just smaller labels. But David was completely independent. He played in (at that point) four different bands, had his own recording studio, and would accompany just about any musician in need at a gig or recording studio. Now we're all Davids. We're all finding our own way. Many of our favorite musicians are those we find on youtube. The Universities told some of our favorite authors that they weren't any good, but thankfully some of them were simply obligate writers who couldn't not write. And in this digital age the braver among them took a chance that, even if those educated in our Universities to have contempt for the simple and the beautiful had rejected them, perhaps they could cast their bread on the water of the internet and see if there were any souls among the 4 billion with computers and kindles and phones who they might touch and be touched by out there. And they found us. And we found them. There will always be gatekeepers. And there will always be a majority who will look to them to tell us what we are supposed to like and dislike. And there will always be obligate artists who do what we do. The shift is that there is now a much broader path around the gatekeepers. Sometimes the gatekeepers want a piece of some of those self-made artists, and agreeable deals can be made. Good. There are still gatekeepers. But they only control the high volume, big buck markets. Sure there are many ways for an artist to make a living under the radar of these people. Small scale stuff ain't worth their effort anyway. Not enough $$$ in it to cover their overhead. I imagine they (gatekeepers) are continually monitoring the handyman markets watching for someone to rise to a popularity level where it's worth their while to sign these artists and introduce them to the mushroom cloud of nuclear media presence. It's probably easier for the gatekeepers now. They don't have to beat the bushes to find and nurture talent. They just pick and chose the ones that make it to their threshold level.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 11, 2020 15:53:54 GMT -5
Sure. In the sense that there's a whole lot more garbage to sort through in order to get to something worthwhile. When guys like me can record and sell a record, you know there's some breakdown in the gatekeeping system. I mean that. Up through the '70s or even into the '80s, there's no way in hell a record company (a gatekeeper) would've let me make a record on their dime. For me, for better or worse, technology didn't level the playing field. It eliminated it. Then again, I didn't do a record expecting to make money (or even break even) or even achieve some measure of fame. I just wanted to share my music. But I know some musicians (and you folks probably know some too) who think their self-produced record will get them somewhere. There are a handful of indie-artist-makes-it-big stories and that is what they latch into. I kept my day job largely because a) I was better at it than music and b) I like to eat regular meals. I've heard and seen your stuff here. Your personal opinion is much too negative. I was working in legitimate recording studios in the early 80s. A digital 2-track for mixdown cost $100,000. I've got more recording horsepower in my basement collecting dust now (I think the most I paid for any single piece was $800). I've now engineered, mastered, produced, sold, and made a profit on 4 different CDs, done largely in my bedroom for less than $2000 apiece. The problem these days is that anybody can do that. And do it with less skill. And fuck it up. And give it away for free. And steal gigs because they're willing to do it to "break into" the business. For a bottle of wine and a cookie. Which many venues will be happy to do. After all, it's a pittance to offer real live music instead of playing their phone's Pandora playlist. All of which makes it harder for someone who has actually worked to be good to make any money and see any return. I too decided 33 years ago to get married and get a real job to support a family. Music can still be fun, but I don't care much if I never get the chance to do it again.
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Mar 11, 2020 16:16:45 GMT -5
That's one of the appeals of writing, it does't take a lot of money. What it takes is time. And if you've got time, it's good.
The folks that are making money as indy authors are the ones producing. There are folks who write a lot of books, as in one or more a month. They're shorter, formula fiction. But you get going, you get a mailing list going and ask people to join it, and off you go. Series work, and the bigger the backlist you have, the better you do, as folks that like your stuff will keep buying it, provided you can produce it.
Kindle unlimited has been a boon for both genre readers and writers. People who love romance, for instance, can read a book a day. They pay their monthly fee, and off they go. You don't make a huge amount per read, maybe a couple of bucks, but it adds up.
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Mar 11, 2020 16:19:45 GMT -5
Sure. In the sense that there's a whole lot more garbage to sort through in order to get to something worthwhile. When guys like me can record and sell a record, you know there's some breakdown in the gatekeeping system. I mean that. Up through the '70s or even into the '80s, there's no way in hell a record company (a gatekeeper) would've let me make a record on their dime. For me, for better or worse, technology didn't level the playing field. It eliminated it. Then again, I didn't do a record expecting to make money (or even break even) or even achieve some measure of fame. I just wanted to share my music. But I know some musicians (and you folks probably know some too) who think their self-produced record will get them somewhere. There are a handful of indie-artist-makes-it-big stories and that is what they latch into. I kept my day job largely because a) I was better at it than music and b) I like to eat regular meals. Shit, Dave, there's guys like all over streaming services now, and they reach back right to the 60s. I'm with Pete, you undervalue your stuff. Lots of country and folk artists have made a living with simple tunes with some passion behind them, and a gruff voice over top. I made a decision to stick with the regular job when I was 19. I was not mentally ready to try to be a full time artist, and the work in the kind of gigs we got and money sucked.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Mar 11, 2020 16:41:50 GMT -5
Are bmi/ascap/sesac kind of anti-gatekeepers?
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 11, 2020 16:49:49 GMT -5
Are bmi/ascap/sesac kind of anti-gatekeepers? Like when they shut down venues because somebody had the nerve to play a Jackson Browne song from 1973? No. Definitely gate keepers.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Mar 11, 2020 17:39:24 GMT -5
But that's also encouraged players to create their own content (and venues to insure players do that).
so maybe gatekeepers that shot themselves in the feet.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 11, 2020 18:02:04 GMT -5
But that's also encouraged players to create their own content (and venues to insure players do that). so maybe gatekeepers that shot themselves in the feet. I've never met anyone who could survive for 4 hours on their own originals. And I've never known anyone stupid enough to try. Better to just hook the sound system to Sirius and be done with it.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Mar 11, 2020 18:05:36 GMT -5
Our Folk Society calendar is full of players who do only originals. Of course, our concerts are only run to two 45-minute sets, so the four-hour criterion remains intact.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 11, 2020 18:24:20 GMT -5
Our Folk Society calendar is full of players who do only originals. Of course, our concerts are only run to two 45-minute sets, so the four-hour criterion remains intact. That's probably about right. Usually 2 45 minute sets will run you about 18 songs plus or minus (depending on how skilled one is at telling tall tales). Between 3 CDs we had maybe 32 songs. Throw in a couple more that were unrecorded and you're at 35 or 36. A realistic view of your own material and commercial interests will probably cause you to focus on your strongest and newest, so 15-18 is doable. But that's 3 CDs, or roughly 4 years of backlog. And that neglects the power of connection that a good cover can engender. And that's in a closed artist-focused venue, not a general music venue like a bar or club. So there's that......
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 14, 2020 14:09:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Mar 14, 2020 15:09:24 GMT -5
I can do a thousand words a hour, with a single edit. I try to write for 3 hours a day, which I mostly succeed at. I still have to do revisions. Depending on where you are in your writing life, and what kind of writing you’re doing, you write faster, and have to edit less. There was an article on Science Fiction Writers of America from a girl went from 2,000 to 10,000 words a day. She carefully tracked when and where she was writing, to learn what worked best. She was already an outliner, but she started every writing session with a mini outline of the days work, to get more detail and make the actual writing go more smoothly. And any scene that she found didn’t excite her, she either dropped it, or figured out how to make it more interesting. One way that many genre writers are doing this is by writing at these crazy rates. There are people writing a novel a month. This is often very formulaic writing, and Romance is very formulaic. The key seems to be to build up your mailing list, and your back list, and remind people every time they buy a book to join your mailing list. Then sending out email newsletters every 1 to 4 weeks, remind everyone that you have more books. There are various ads that you can run on FB and Amazon to get readers, and again you get them on your list. Series work the best; price the first one for free or at .99 cents, and then you get buy through, if the first one was engaging. Which of course is the key, the books have to be decent books. But this formula very much works, there are lots of success stories. It takes time, but getting the mailing list going, building the backlist, and constantly adding new books at a reasonable rate is one solid ticket. Truth is for most folks in traditional marketing, they have to do all this too, as the trad publishers don’t do much to promote books. And they’re not that interested in taking in that many books a year from one author, generally, and their entire route to market is incredibly slow. And they pay way less. Whereas, when you do it all yourself, you publish what you want, when you want.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Mar 14, 2020 15:19:07 GMT -5
Just read (rather quickly--I'm on the clock here) the Thu-Huong Ha piece and have to say that this makes a warehouse job look more appealing. And I wonder about the quality of the product and about the nature of the customer base.
There have always been production-machine writers--I have one personal acquaintance who operated in that mode for a while, deliberately aspiring to the million-words-a-year level of publication that Erle Stanley Gardner was said to have reached. (Gardner got to the point where he dictated his copy rather than actually typing it out himself.) Then there was L. Ron Hubbard, who was said to work at a specially-geared, souped-up electric typewriter on continuous rolls of paper, so he wouldn't have to take the time to feed fresh pages. But Hubbard was a notorious liar and probably started those stories himself. But he was prodigiously productive of yard-goods copy for the pulps.
And some categories of fiction are so formula-bound that "writing" a story is a matter of filling in the blanks--porn is one example, but Harlequin had so many rules and requirements and forbidden zones (based on their model of the customer/reader) that whole categories of decision were already made for the writer.
So--if your target audience is willing to accept the kind of product that can be turned out in less than a week, then, sure, you can "make it" as a "published author"--and if you're willing to do the rest of the hustling that would otherwise be supplied by a commercial publisher, you get to keep the proceeds (less Amazon's cut). But that still looks like a job about as satisfying as being the assistant manager at a mall retail chain store. Of course, the commute is shorter, and you can work in your bathrobe. . . .
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Mar 14, 2020 18:49:47 GMT -5
Well, I’d have to say that just about every one of the 40s/50s/60s SF writers wrote like that, Russell, and created some great stuff.
I can also tell you that the folks I have met recently who are trying to do this in various genres love doing it, and are proud of what they turn out.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Mar 14, 2020 20:05:20 GMT -5
Rick, I'm going to have to disagree that "just about every one of the 40s/50s/60s SF writers wrote like that," because I've studied them and known a few personally. It's true that a full-time pro had to write fast, but that factory-output model does not match what I heard from and about them.
The handful that it does apply to were generally recognized as hacks--one such was F. Lionel Fanthorpe, who turned the crank for the British Badger Books paperback line. I heard him speak at a convention decades ago--a cheerful, unapologetic hack who didn't take himself or his work at all seriously. Just as well, because nobody else did, either.
There is a rare combination of talents and personality traits that makes for a successful high-output writer--Erle Stanley Gardner had it, and for a while so did Robert Silverberg (who almost burned out before reinventing himself as a serious writer). Harlan Ellison had some of it, but he also suffered from a kind of artistic congestion that made it almost impossible to produce a decent novel. (He was also a bombastic asshole.)
Some self-publishing people can certainly find ways of doing writing that satisfies the need to write and also make some money. Most of the product of such activity that I see, though, is not as good as the commercial books on my reject pile--and some of them are pretty dire. (The rest are merely tedious or not to my taste.)
I'm not arguing against the self-publishing model per se, or even that it's not possible to make it work economically. There's The Martian, successful despite its position on my reject pile. And for a competent writer who already has had some conventional success, it can be a career-rescuer, as it seems to have been for Linda Nagata, who retreated into it after a half-dozen successful novels. I don't know how her press is doing financially, but her new books are quite good. But then, she was good before.
I'd admire to see a thorough survey of self-publishing writers--output, sales numbers, income, hours-per-project, though I don't know how one would herd those cats or adjust for the self-promotion or delusion.
|
|