One thing that concerns me, and apparently many others, is the growing disparity between artist and audience. I’m talking pure numbers here. Ever been to a show with less people in the audience then on stage? Shouldn’t there be more performers than viewers? And no, family members, significant others, venue employees and opening acts to not count. If no one is around to appreciate how talented and creative you are, what’s the point? Our ego’s are fragile enough as it is...
Maybe it’s because my town (
With most music, I don’t believe we are quite in that crisis mode, but that really depends on what you happen to be performing. Everybody loves music, right? It’s everywhere – recorded music anyway… But like movies, recorded music is the safe, dependable choice. It’s probably why DJs get paid more than musicians these days - you know what you’re getting. There is no element of chance, or if there is, it’s minimal.
But that’s what makes live music so great, right?
Hell yes, I say – but I may be in the minority. And I’m a musician, so I’m biased. What about the music lover (listener) who just spent all week busting their corporate tail and just wants to go out and have some fun - without having to think, or be challenged, or blow $ on a show with a bunch of bands he’s never heard of? It’s the plight of the innovator I guess… You may make heartfelt groundbreaking music, but that doesn’t mean that it will be appreciated, or pay your bills.
How does one gain an audience… from scratch? Having an incredibly large social network certainly helps. But if you are not virtuoso-tic-ly talented and actually have to hone your skills – something that really can’t be done while networking or partying – you may find that while you were holed up in the woodshed, your audience left to go see the new Adam Sandler movie or is busy gettin’ down at ‘80s night, or (!!!) KARAOKE.
Of course, I have no answers. But one thing that I have always held to be true is this simple statement: If you are good, they will come. By “good” I mean - talented, creative, passionate, interesting and engaging. By “they” I mean an audience. Of course, the specifics and particulars of the audience – i.e. how many, for how much ($), how often – will depend on many factors that I can’t begin to cover. But I truly believe, with hard work, a quality project that consistently delivers can be appreciated enough to give the creator enough sense of accomplishment to keep going.
At least I damn well hope so.
3 comments:
So many things to react to. I'll just toss them out in random paragraphs.
What you have here is basically a problem of scattering. Society is scattered, people's brains are scattered, and their attentions are scattered across the many things calling for their attention (and their money), be it 50 different live music offerings on a given night, or TV, or work or laundry or fucking or resting or eating, or the latest PDA or phone that promises to improve their lives but ends up interrupting them a lot. Can you hear me now? And of course the glut of information and the "liberation" of the internet for use by the average Joe for content distribution, has really only made it tougher to find "quality" amongst all that noise and all those average Joes.
Safety. Despite my relatively safe life, or maybe because of it, I seem to have a generalized contempt for safety, since by its very definition it's a condition where NOTHING HAPPENS. Nonetheless, in a land such as this, a "civilized" society as you put it, where people are sort of like, "farmed"... raised en masse, trained to be submissive and obedient, imbued with a conformist and safety-obsessed mentality from an early age, and where as adults they seem increasingly preoccupied with "safety" (yet by their preoccupation with it, only end up driving real safety further away), it seems like a tough sell to get them to take a risk or appreciate the taking of risks. (Or at least let's say, the taking of PRODUCTIVE risks. Electing W was certainly risky enough, assuming you believe he was elected.) Nonetheless it's this very safety and boringness that drives some of them to do just that -- take risks. Therein lies the hope for anything new or any new expansion of what's currently known or done. But really, that kind of person will never be (and maybe should never be) a high percentage of the population. Everybody can't be cool. There are explorers and rule-breakers as there always have been, and well-behaved followers as there always have been. Sooo, if your music appeals to the explorers, you're going to have to be content with small numbers. Though I also think I tend to underestimate the general populace slightly, because I've been to some surprisingly well-attended "experimental music" shows... not sure how they packed 'em in on those nights, should've asked. Maybe the room was full of newly-imported Portland artistes.
Starting to build an audience from scratch, well honestly, I'd say the social network is probably most of it. Though even there, your "tribe" still won't come see you if you don't play a good version of the general style of music that they're all into, or if they're not, furthermore, the type of people who already tend to go out to shows. Music is a communal thing and so it helps if there's a community already built up, or if you build one (which is a lot harder than starting a band).
Regarding the sense of accomplishment, that should be there the whole time, through the whole process. The best way to go through the "art" process is to be enjoying it the whole time and treat the audience as almost secondary. As in, they happen 2nd. They're not necessarily unimportant, but an audience is going to form, or align itself, based on what you do first. If you make metal you'll draw metal fans. Whatever you do, your audience will shape up around it. People who like you, or who are like you, or who at least like what you like, will come closer, and the others will head in another direction. And of course you'll have to bust ass and do it over and over and do it consistently, to expect that maybe in the general chaos and distraction and change and turnover, you might start to develop a fan base. Most bands or artists don't stay consistent that long, and I'm glad they don't. None of this applies, of course, if you make music for a specific pre-formed community as above, which who knows, maybe you just happen to, and those people like it, and maybe that's part of why you like those people. But if you're doing art just to get an audience, there are a lot of things you can do that are easier and more likely to draw a crowd.
Yep.
I would argue that anyone who is pursuing "performance based art" or any art for that matter, is attempting to communicate to an audience. If your tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear... blah, blah.
Sure, you must get some personal satisfaction out of the creative process, but as a musician, at least part of the wonderment - the real joy - comes from the shared experience. You are pushing air into the ears of a listener and lucky enough to experience their reaction to it, first hand (hmmmm... unless you only make records).
Sitting around in your bedroom all day, feeling the bliss of those three chords you've been strumming may be fine for some. But I have a hard time believing that if you are pursuing this (or any) cultural medium and attempting to convey ideas (be they language based or not) you will need an audience to fully see the process through.
You bet.
And thanks for your comments!
I took pains to point out that the audience isn't unimportant. In fact it's essential, at least for the experience of "community" I mentioned, where people make connection with each other. Which may be the main thing everyone is really craving anyway, including the artist. If that's the case, then we should note that the experience of community or connection is available a lot of other ways -- some of which are arguably better, at least for some -- including the dance club and the dreaded (!!!) KARAOKE!
I more wanted to make the distinction between getting a sense of accomplishment from something that ultimately depends on others (the audience), and over which you have little control (and which I suppose maybe I've given up on for that reason), vs. just enjoying my own efforts throughout, and then sharing it with someone else is like a bonus. It doesn't mean I'll sit with my thumb up my arse all day, it just means I'm in no hurry. But that's me, we'll probably always have a different focus there. I'm coming from a place where I find I already think plenty about the audience, maybe too much, even to the point of wondering how they'll react to music I'm making up right then, and contriving something I think they'll like. No, what I should be doing is focusing more on what I like, and what makes me like it. Which in the great popularity contest, probably has the greatest chance of attracting listeners who are similar to me. And assuming that my taste is good, and that I'm not all that different from other people, and that maybe occasionally I manage to tap into something more-or-less universal, that should attract an okay number of listeners and land me in the same place -- if I do what we've both said here, which is do it consistently and often and well. Which of course is where all the hard work iz at.
Post a Comment