When they got us to call it content, we lost. It’s called music, painting, printing, sewing, sculpting, literature, dance, “the Arts”. Can’t whizz it all up in a blender and call it content—produces the creamed squash that babies fist into their mouths and smear all over the high chair. It’s time for creativity to be valued and rewarded. It’s possible.
Social media does not reward or value anyone outside the bubble that they think you should be in! Their goal is to keep you on their platform by keeping you in your bubble! This is the sad state of the artistic society today!
@frankgoodman ohhhh yes! I was part of a record industry startup mid nineties. With great pride did we start to make ‘content’ a common word around the office, the conferences, you name it. So we all collectively contributed to de-humanizing the artistic experience. The young folks I work with in my tech accelerator programs time and again need re-programming to discover that taking the human out of the art enslaves us all. We propagated what’s made possible a world where we efficiently steal from millions of creators to feed large language models instead of setting the blanket license model on fire to the benefit of artists.
This puts into words something I’ve long felt. The rise of conformist cultural styles feels regressive and boring. The profession of influencer, for example, is a return to the most basic and old fashioned type of advertising - buy this to be like this cool person. It’s like the corniest 1950s TV ad with a smirking salesman, only wearing body ink and speaking in 2020s catchphrases. The culture will only return to vitality when art re-finds the virtues of imagination and playful non-conformity. Ted’s principles draw a line in the sand.
HI! This is a new place in Portland, OR, that appears to be taking its cues from the future. MORE OF THAT, PLEASE!!! (Evidently, it's also a reconstituted porn palace, which makes it weirdly even cooler.)
So what's the new term? Outsider Cinema? Counterculture Cinema? Rebel Cinema? Not-Buyin'-The-Bullshit Cinema? I mean, I love Ted Hope to distraction -- love BOTH of you Teds! -- but NonDe as a term says nothing to me. (I'm not even sure how to access that little accent on my keyboard, just for starters.)
The words that catch on are the words that resonate. Words have power when they work, and they don't when they don't. We need a word that's defiant. A fuck-you word that's fun to say, and that makes the old power structure kinda blink back tears and stare at its shoes in profound embarrassment every single fucking time we say it.
Meanwhile, in the "A Rose by Any Other Name" Department: this is the creative moment for which I feel I was born. I make books, movies, and music with the fungasmic ferocity and non-conformist spirit I think we're all discussin' here. Always lookin' for cool, kind-hearted wildasses to art-o-tain with! THANKS, TED!!! LET'S DO IT!!!
I don't think it's a matter of vilifying. Indie's still a good word. I think it's just that the air has gone out of that tire. And that we won't be able to resurrect it with any juice at all until it has left the conversation for awhile.
So for now, let's let something else with some REAL juice do the job. Then, when indie comes back, we'll have actually missed it. HOPE THAT MAKES SENSE!
Agree. When you label you categorize, commoditization comes soon after. Think of the music categories you used to see in record stores: Rock, Pop, Classical, Country, and if you’re lucky, Jazz Nd Blues. I know a used book/album/CD chain that combines Jazz and Easy Listening into one category. Annoys me every time I see it! Don’t focus on the label, focus on what is being created.
It has old connotations now, that at least in my head scream "nothing i want to watch or hear". But even if others dont feel those particular implications from the word, they likely do feel something that will be hard to shake in a redefining.
I believe the concept of community should be included in this name. The same way independent music was referring to artists that did not want to do things mainstreamly, the new term should talk about the power of not being alone.
How about sth like Hub Music? Co-op Music? U-Music (United & Unique)?
I think the "new economic models" part is the one to focus on most. Artist-forward places like Bandcamp are a great start, but systemic change (affordable housing, healthcare, etc.) would reap the biggest rewards. They're also the hardest sell.
I think you make a really important point here. Despite the “democratisation” of music making with the advent of DAWs on computers / phones etc what I think this really means is that a lot of music gets made in people’s spare time (if they have any). Production tools have helped people to fashion finished stuff more cheaply but many people just don’t have the time to develop a voice because they’re struggling to make ends meet and running 2 or 3 jobs at the same time. In the 80s and 90s I was a student unburdened by loan and then did several jobs but still had time to spend literally hours and hours every week making music.
If we can return to a time when we’re not rent slaves then perhaps people will have more time to experiment and find new forms.
This is a good point; retirement is a wonderful thing, for this and many other reasons. In my case, I have no desires or ambitions directed towards putting the stuff I do into circulation, but it's great fun working away and hopefully improving at it.
I realise that retirement is a luxury that may be a long way away for some folks, and I wish everyone in that particular situation all the best in finding a way to make this work. Has to be better than AI slop and the crumbs that drop from Spotify and the rest
“I believe in the noble, aristocratic art of doing absolutely nothing. And I hope someday I'll be in a position where I can do even less. “ *
I can’t recall who said this but I’ve always liked it. In reality as I myself approach the time when I should be thinking about retirement I am busier with personal creative projects than ever - to the casual observer it might look , however, like I’m doing “nothing”
*sample appears on Satyricon by Meat Beat Manifesto (1992)
I agree that housing and health care are big issues that need changing, but I'm not sold on the idea that this is what's keeping people from making music. If someone has a free hour, do they jump on the DAW and work on some music or do they doomscroll? I imagine for most people it's the latter.
After a lifetime of music, storytelling, and creative ventures that culminated with the investment into a digital production studio (with money I couldn't afford to spend) and the launch of a doomed publishing house, I've spent the last few months dubious of my artistic design, overcome by my apparent inability to connect and participate in the spaces I feel called. I've taken a soul-sucking day job for the first time in a decade, and I feel more isolated by the day.
Nevertheless, I can't shake the embers and ideas within me to build something different and better with independent artists—to tell new stories and reclaim a culture that's been commodified by corporations, devalued by platforms, and scared into the shadows by the existential threats of AI. Nothing feels like "the people's" anymore because nothing is. Creativity is now "content," and content is nothing if not wholly disposable.
As a Xennial, I've witnessed our stories, ideas, dreams, and passions—the movies, books, and music that shaped our worlds—watered down and sold back to us my entire young adult/adult life. Everything's recycled; everything's repackaged; nothing is new in "pop culture" (whatever that means anymore). Where are our Spielbergs, our Princes, our Bowies, our De Niro's, our studio heads, our governance, our academics, our traditions? Where is our culture—the culture of the digital age? (Which is our collective culture, of course, not just my cohorts; I only use that time frame as an example.)
This is a massive problem, one I have ideas about tackling. But I'm a nobody, an unknown fish in an unending ocean, and the tides are rising faster than I can tread, trying to raise four kids in a flooded world.
Ted, I appreciate how your posts always seem to come at the right time, reminding me we can still swim. That things can shift—that they WANT to shift. That we're not so alone. Thank you.
Much of this terrible crushing of the indie ecosystem came from pricing out cheap urban life in major cities. I was a student at a certain school in that Palo Alto about 35 years ago, and plenty of indie life was at hand around the Bay Area. PA still had its beloved indie movie theater, its indie arcade, and indie bookstores, as well as the charming 24-hour creamery started circa WWI and surviving the Great Depression.
The wash of Big Tech money began destroying that world in the late 90s, then demolished what was left after 2008. First and foremost was the devastating tripling and quadrupling of commercial rents. Residential rents went from a tad expensive to absurd, then absurd squared. Gentrification doesn't start to capture the change. Even well-paid people have a hard time making ends meet in such areas.
The story is the same in the ultra pricey traditional urban centers of creative culture. Even Austin is expensive now. What will be the geography of Ted's new culture?
Actually, there’s something happening outside the algorithms and the most popular social media, and you’ll only see it if you’re not there. I think you start to notice it as soon as you step away from that ecosystem.
In fact, there is EVERYTHING happening outside that ecosystem. Real fucking life is happening, as it always has, and it really is the place to be. I think the social media/platform world is a cheap substitute, and thats so obvious when youre not in it. And i even see that idea growing in younger generations. They see it more for what it is, not the idea of it we were all sold. It boils down to a scrolling dopamine addiction, and its a pretty shitty addiction at that.
That is the rub. I think what its going to come down to for artists is do you want to peddle your wares to scrolling addicts, or that sliver of the population(but a sliver thats now growing, i think) that can actually appreciate your work? And yeah, we need a way for artists to connect to that sliver.
Idk anything about any of the arts and how they actually get made and propagated. Ik what i like, and ik ive completely turned away from getting my music or video(broad category) from any kind of streaming platform. I buy cds and dvds and books(the paper ones). Bc to me the problem is the delivery system. Once i decided i hate youtube ive never looked back. Bc yt was ruining music for me, with all the manipulative shit it does. If i cant get it in a physical media i own and can use how i choose, i dont want it.
These seem to be the only choices rn. But i think any attempt to use a streaming service to promote an artistic creation is subject to this corruption, so i dont think the answer lies there.
I dont understand why we walked away from ipod/download tech for music. From there its easy to put it on cd(as i would) or use a device to carry my music. I could buy an album directly from an artist, have my physical copy, the artist gets paid, and theres no tech overlord middleman trying to fuck with me(or the artist). To me thats a place to start.
But until people see streaming/scrolling for what it really is, and become willing to walk away from that, nobodies going to be put effort into developing any alternative.
Of course, but the internet has changed real life too. For example, back in the day, if your band had a gig, you had to go out and put up posters. Social media erased that. What I mean is, something’s shifting even within the internet itself, and that shift will echo out into the real world too.
You may be right. Truth be told i wouldnt know, im not there enough to notice it, yet anyway.
Seems like social media might be erasing the gigging too.. at least ive heard such rumblings here, and i cant remember the last time i heard any real people talking about a show. It used to be a thing in my town. But youre right, the posters are gone. Maybe thats why nobody goes to shows. Do people really remember what they see on their social media feeds? But you see a poster, if you take the time to read it, youll remember the date and location.
Point being, yes social media has had an effect, but maybe not the assumed beneficial effect, such as doing a good job of advertising shows for bands, that it at first seems to. And maybe people are just too lazy to go to shows bc theyre busy on their phones lol.
So what is this shift youre seeing? Can you elaborate, for an internet hermit such as myself lol? I see teds posts, the nyt morning emails, and live science email, and not much else. Well and ofc googling answers or pictures(i do love being able to see any ancient historic site i might be reading about, and wikipedia is still pretty useful, with a grain of salt). Id like to know what youre seeing and expecting
Actually, as Ted rightly points out, people are going to concerts more and more. Everything happening is kind of counterintuitive, in a way, there’s a growing rejection of virtuality. It’s not that people will suddenly stop using the internet, because the internet itself isn’t bad, but the big social networks are. And here’s the point: how much shorter can they make videos? How much more can they flood you with ads? What’s the limit? Maybe we’re reaching that limit.
What I’m seeing is the rise of platforms like Substack and the widespread dissatisfaction with networks like Facebook and Instagram. While it’s not total yet, these are signs that something is shifting. All those networks are run by people who genuinely believe you’ll leave your kids with a robot, that’s the future they want. They won’t succeed. Nobody wants to talk to a fking robot when they have a problem.
Reality is becoming (and will be) the scarcest resource, and therefore the most valuable. I’m not saying we’ll see a revolution in the next few years (maybe we will), but there’s no doubt this algorithmic-accelerationist model is starting to crack, and in those cracks, things begin to happen. Changes in the logic we operate by.
For example? Until recently, the only advice you heard for promoting your music was stuff like “grow your audience, increase your online presence, optimize content for engagement or visibility,” etc., etc., etc. There’s so much saturation that nobody cares anymore. But what if you tried a different approach?
I have a label. Not long ago, I opened a call for a Dark Ambient tribute to The Cure. The compilation has 20 different artists. The album was a success, I sold copies worldwide. Each of those artists promoted it because they were part of it. I didn’t do promotion; they did it for me because what I did was useful for them.
Maybe it’s time to take the word “community” away from these tech bros and give it back the real meaning it deserves. What they call the past might actually be the future.
I would just hope that indie or whatever comes next is not like free jazz, which in my opinion, took many years of valuable production away from some great artists (including the last years of Coltrane). New can be great. It can also be a disaster (like, in my view, most disco, rap and a lot of pop music). There is so much great old music that new technology has made available to us that I don't worry that I dislike what's new. Some people I know are satisfied with just a few albums their whole lives. I need thousands, but I probably have a core group of several thousand pieces that keep me happy. And I'm happy some artists are content to keep varying older type music without falling off the cliff.
lol dude free jazz “took years of production” from Coltrane and others? what the hell does that even mean? jazz isn’t a museum piece my dude. it evolved and keeps evolving like any other genre. Coltrane’s later albums are legendary for not sticking to his legacy but innovating and exploring outer space. don’t get stuck in nostalgia! Ted talks a lot about that in this space.
Of course it evolves. By the way I've read Ted on free jazz. He's very open in his book The History of Jazz that some critics and artists seemed to think the worse the better. There were some artists who understood how to just walk that line as even Coltrane did early on and as Pharaoh Sanders did afterwards - sometimes. But most free jazz was just horrible screeching. No melody, no harmony - just distortion and dissonance. I could play it, because you don't need to know how to play. I've listened to my 6-year-old grandson play better music than I've heard in free jazz. By the way, I've listened to many hours of free jazz trying to give it a chance, because I do that with all "music." It's just horrible. It's not about evolution or having an open mind. There are other types of music I don't particularly like, but I don't put them in the same category. Some things are just bad. That's why, thankfully, it's pretty much gone and jazz, though not very popular, survives and continues to evolve.
Disagree with your broad swipe at musicians playing frre jazz not knowing how to play. Many of the original free jazz pioneers could play “normal” jazz quite well For example, Ornette Coleman was perfectly capable of playing Charlie Parker style bebop, he just felt compelled to push forward. Not all his music works, but when it does, it’s beautiful in its own strange way. Listen to his seminal piece Lonely Woman - it’s haunting.
Barry, when did I take a broad swipe at musicians playing free jazz? I actually called them "great musicians." It is the music they chose to play that I think is bad and I'm hardly alone. Since this is Ted's Substack, let me quote from his "The History of Jazz" (which described the music and musicians but did not give his own opinion; my own opinion is based on hours of listening to Taylor, Coleman, Coltrane, Cherry, Williams, Sanders, Ayler and others playing free jazz - hoping I would like it):
". . . [T]he true believers and caustic dissenters had, perhaps, more in common than they realized. Some listeners no doubt found a soothing catharsis in Coltrane's "Ascension" or Albert Ayler's "Spiritual Unity," yet it is clear that many delighted precisely in the music's foreboding exterior. This latter group never pretended that shrill overtone squeals and distorted quarter-tone barks sounded mellifluous; it may not be going too far that worse the music sounded, the better it suited their needs. . . .
. . . One jazz critic, exulting in exactly this harsh exterior of the most progressive music, went so far as to brag that the records he recommended were precisely those that people were least likely to enjoy. . . ."
There's a reason this has largely faded away. In the few times in my life when I was somewhere that jazz was playing in a host's home or restaurant, it was never free jazz - and I have to believe the reason is b/c people don't like screeching and disordered music, except during some periods when it is temporarily faddish. They like melodies, harmonies, sonorous notes, chords and beauty. It is no different with classical music - we are still listening to Bach, Beethoven and Mozart, not Schoenberg.
BTW, some, like Coltrane and Pharoah Sanders made some great pieces which had some few elements of free jazz (like overblowing) that was wonderful. Sanders' "Karma" is one of my favorite albums. But they weren't (then, at least) doing away with everything else that made music beautiful. I have, in fact, listened multiple times, to "Lonely Woman" and whole Coleman albums. LW has a compelling rhythm, but it is not fun to listen to for me. I tried to like it.
In short, I enjoy experimentation in music. I liked or loved Miles Davis in every stage of his career as a leader, and he was constantly after the new. In my opinion, he never went completely overboard and gave up his musicianship just to be different. Taste is taste and we all may like whatever we like. Personally, as my original comment indicated, I hope new music doesn't again follow this path. Young people, in particular, seem attracted to things which will make others cringe. I just don't want to hear it.
Of course, feel free to differ. But I didn't take a swipe at anyone. And please don't take any of the above personally. I like discussing music.
In 1966 (I think), I took a bunch of college friends to the Village Theater in NYC to an Ornette Coleman and John Coltrane concert. Coleman played a screeching plastic violin and Coltrane, with Pharoah Sanders and others , assaulted the audience with a constant barrage of screaming saxes and aggressive sounds (both occasionally broke into something sweet, but only occasionally). My friends were confused and appalled, and I tried to explain but not convincingly. But: I remember this concert fully, and have been to lots of music before and since which I can barely recall. So I now I carry the free jazz movement as a part of my deeper musical understanding, from experiencing it live. And yes, I saw Ornette Coleman many years later, playing with two basses, and the music then was beautiful (and also memorable). But disruptions and changes are all part of the growth in art forms, not to be dismissed as wasteful or irrelevant. It's a story I carry through this long life.
I am not dismissing anything, Lenny. Free jazz was, in my view, a part of the artistic cycle, where musicians and other artists start out with a lot of rules, some good, some not important and some bad. Over time, musicians and other artists start to shed rules and try new things one by one. Eventually, they start to shed those that are important. It was the same with orchestral music in the early 20th century, as I noted above, the same with art with some abstract work, and so on. But I really don't think these periods last long, even if some other musicians try them out. Eventually, especially if they want to be appreciated by a lot of people, they head back to the rules that matter.
Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington are both credited with saying (I doubt either coined it) something to the effect that there are two kinds of music. Good music and bad music. They (they said) played the good kind. If they, generally considered among the greatest of jazz musicians, can say it, why can't I? I think free jazz is the bad kind.
I was ten when straight outta compton came out, rap is definitely the music of my generation. I can tell you in the rap genre there is some serious musical genius type talent out there. And honestly i cant think of a genre that has a more diverse sound profile(which im sure is hilarious to people who feel rap all sounds the same lol. But anybody who says anything all "blanks" the same is really saying theyve closed their mind to that thing, bc nothing with any breadth is all the same. Like disco, which i hate, all sounds the same to me, and im ok with my mind being closed to disco lol). Not trying to convince you you should like rap, but to call it a disaster is not giving it the credit it deserves.
But everything else you said exactly describes how i see the music situation. There is so much music already that im happy exploring whats already here, be that revisiting or discovering what i missed.
I wonder how much of that is linked to age. I remember at some point thinking nothing new was fitting into my tastes and that was ok bc what i really wanted was music that sounded like what i liked from 15-35, maybe 40ish. And i feel that way about older music too, like id rather hear the led zeppelin albums i had when i was in high school over the ones id never gotten around to. But then when i do feel that need for "new", THEN i hit those albums i hadnt yet heard.
So yeah it really doesnt matter to me what they make at this point. If it turns out to be something i like, cool, and if not, im already good
I have also spent many hours listening to rap and getting recommendations from younger people about what I might possibly like. In its whole history I can find about 10 songs I enjoyed, which I have on a playlist, but they are something more than just rap, crossovers. Two are by Prince. If you have someone or some album you think might change my mind, let me know. I would listen to it.
I realized that most people are trapped with the music they grow up with, and I was very fortunate to have discovered classical and jazz when I was young. I love rock too and little bits of pretty much most types of music. I try very hard to keep my mind open and I wish I could say that about almost anyone else I know, when it comes to music. 99% of my friends find it intolerable to listen to anything but their favorite subgenre. I feel bad for them. Can't help it. There's so much great music out there.
I will make a recommendation but honestly, i get it. Not liking a genre seems as natural to me as liking another, and it is what it is. And then, if you dont know the music its hard to appreciate why this is good or that isnt. For instance, you could play some jazz for me and i wouldnt know if it was good or bad. Best i could do is tell you if i like it or not and see if that lines up with the general consensus. On the other hand if you played me like 10 albums i think i could pick out the good from the bad. Anyway im digressing here lol
So my recommendation rn would be Fabolous' three mixtapes, summertime shootout 1-3. They play more like albums, with a cohesiveness you rarely come across in rap albums, let alone mixtapes. Theres alot more going on with the music than just his rapping, the whole package is very well crafted. I personally think #3 is the best, which exactly the opposite of what i thought when i first heard them. But they are all pretty good, and definitely have that reputation with people that like rap.
Id totally be interested to hear what you think, if you do get to check them out. To me they are definitely fabs magnum opus, and are stellar examples of rap/hip hop done right.
Also the soul tape 3, by the same artist. I think that might actually be a better recommendation for you. Its a more mellow vibe, and a little deeper too. Try that one first, fabolous soul tape 3
Thrilled to see Filmstack mentioned in the hallowed pages of the Honest Broker! This got me curious - are there other arts communities working to create new systems or models like this?
Haha! I was about to do the same thing! Raising AND lowering the ninth, including the 11th and not altering the 5th but flattening the 13th. Yeah, alt chords allow for interpretation, but that was a bit much!
You’re proposing a structure to give “indie” a space, but the root of Indy or indie is that it had no structure, no space to operate in. It made its own rules with its own structure. The alt music and indie films were born organically from a revolt against the mainstream. The only way for that to happen again is on its own. You can’t force a movement, only support one when it blossoms.
The main (perhaps only) thing I learned in college was this: Art is nothing without institutionalization. Here's what I mean (and what the industry understands): If you have enough outliers, meaning artists or ideas, they eventually coalesce into something that can be taught. Can be MARKETED. The artist eclipses boundaries, but eventually defines what they've become. The next generation learn that definition and launch beyond it.
What happened is that everyone was independent. We all uploaded whatever wherever, had access to the world equally. A few people got lucky. Marketers latched onto that and asked the rest of us to do what the lucky people did, because they didn't have a budget like they used to. Even in the "good old days," only about a dozen people could make a living off of poetry. Nowadays the big box publishers will only invest in those 12 people, leaving everyone else to fend for themselves.
What you're saying is that we have, as independents, reached a critical mass in which some sort of filtering is necessary. As a person who's read slush for litmags, I assure you this is true. We need parameters not only for investors and marketers, for for the audience to filter their limited bandwidth into something that will benefit them. There is literally somebody out there writing or recording what you want to read. Vampire unicorns in polyamorous street gangs? Absolutely. But how do you find them? Keywords, they say. Metadata. But wouldn't it be great to gather them into an arena where quality has also been vetted before the reader burns out? Yes. That's where we are.
The outline provided is a good step forward. It's going to lead people whose talent is opportunism to create a platform they can monetize. That's all you get. Get on it.
I can see that. The hard thing to convey is that there really are levels to creativity. You can absolutely present your work to the world when you think it's ready. If it's not ready, the audience will let you know. But feed them too much first-draft rawness, they will burn out. Not everything is ready to be presented to the audience. Right now, equal access is causing some of the symptoms we used to attribute to the publishers, because in the past only the slush readers were getting burnt out.
From an organizer's perspective - festival, conference, rt curator, litmag publisher - you have to make choices. Some are based on the quality of the work; some are based on how it fits in with the rest of the show/exhibit/stable of published authors. A show has cohesion; it tells a story comprised of disparate parts. As a slush reader, I can tell you that a lot of people think they're ready to publish but really, really aren't. The slush reader have to give everyone a chance. So "gatekeeping" is as nebulous a concept as publication.
An example of true gatekeeping is the Victorian trend of not publishing women because they are women. The current trend of spotlighting an act's social minority status is not true gatekeeping, because the creator already passed several quality hurdles. They are good enough. Telling the audience they're brown or disabled is a market angle (not disingenuously.)
Was there (for example) a normal, healthy white guy whose work was also being considered? Yes. Did the disability factor into the voting process? Probably not, unless the author had no arms and no legs and was brilliant writing. Which book puts forward our vision for our publishing house? That's why editors might say your work is "not a good fit for us at this time." Why you need to research publishers.
There's not much true gatekeeping anymore. KDP and Lulu will let you publish your book, because they understand that writers *are* a market. Same with musicians and Bandcamp, Soundcloud, etc. Marketing teams know there's a market somewhere, and weigh in (if the editors ask them) according to how easily they can access that market. That's been my experience - from both sides.
Another thing people sometimes forget to consider when seeking publication...an author friend who's published 30+ books once said to me: "So your story is about cancer. Have you gone to the National Book Festival and seen how many cancer books there are? What makes yours different?" He's a cancer survivor when he says this. He is right.
What makes yours different has to be something people can pick up on if they don't personally know you. It has to be something other than "This is how the world looks to me" because that's literally every book. If you can say "This is how the world looks to me as a _______________________" AND YOUR WORK BACKS THAT UP, then you have something to tell the publishers.
I’m convinced the future will have to strike some balance to achieve the best of both worlds: digital egalitarianism and industry patronage. Ross Barkan talked about this with his idea of the mesoculture. Above all, though, I think it will require more in-person (ie, not online) engagement: a return to the community aspect of artistic enjoyment and consideration: theaters, readings, concerts, clubs, etc.
Amen Ted! It is great to see some positive chat around the future of whatever indie culture is turning into. So much of late has been broadly negative - and with good reason - but in the face of that, it is welcome indeed to see some focus on how things might eventually get better. Here's to it coming sooner rather than later.
Let´s remember that the current media scenario is fragmented into NICHES.
Beyond the Spotify algorithm and the main tech players in the music business, there are several different niches. Each of them is an indiependent channel that funnels niche musicians.
When they got us to call it content, we lost. It’s called music, painting, printing, sewing, sculpting, literature, dance, “the Arts”. Can’t whizz it all up in a blender and call it content—produces the creamed squash that babies fist into their mouths and smear all over the high chair. It’s time for creativity to be valued and rewarded. It’s possible.
I AGREE WITH THIS. Words matter. Content demeans everything by making it transactional.
Yes. And we are supposed to "consume" it. Awful.
Lovely thoughts. I await specifics
100%. Where can we invest time and attention now (besides locally, which I suspect many readers here already do) to build a better ecosystem?
Social media does not reward or value anyone outside the bubble that they think you should be in! Their goal is to keep you on their platform by keeping you in your bubble! This is the sad state of the artistic society today!
@frankgoodman ohhhh yes! I was part of a record industry startup mid nineties. With great pride did we start to make ‘content’ a common word around the office, the conferences, you name it. So we all collectively contributed to de-humanizing the artistic experience. The young folks I work with in my tech accelerator programs time and again need re-programming to discover that taking the human out of the art enslaves us all. We propagated what’s made possible a world where we efficiently steal from millions of creators to feed large language models instead of setting the blanket license model on fire to the benefit of artists.
Absolutely!
Welcome to today’s music industry:
leaders follow, followers perform, and the algorithm plays the same five chords until we forget what feeling sounds like.
We’re up to FIVE chords now?
I thought three was about the limit.
Nah, I IV, xi, V
The machines must be stopped!
Wasn't that long ago that 'algorithm' was a term only a few math nerds used. Just give us three chords and the truth.
This puts into words something I’ve long felt. The rise of conformist cultural styles feels regressive and boring. The profession of influencer, for example, is a return to the most basic and old fashioned type of advertising - buy this to be like this cool person. It’s like the corniest 1950s TV ad with a smirking salesman, only wearing body ink and speaking in 2020s catchphrases. The culture will only return to vitality when art re-finds the virtues of imagination and playful non-conformity. Ted’s principles draw a line in the sand.
Dear Ted --
HI! This is a new place in Portland, OR, that appears to be taking its cues from the future. MORE OF THAT, PLEASE!!! (Evidently, it's also a reconstituted porn palace, which makes it weirdly even cooler.)
https://tomorrowtheater.org/faq/
So what's the new term? Outsider Cinema? Counterculture Cinema? Rebel Cinema? Not-Buyin'-The-Bullshit Cinema? I mean, I love Ted Hope to distraction -- love BOTH of you Teds! -- but NonDe as a term says nothing to me. (I'm not even sure how to access that little accent on my keyboard, just for starters.)
The words that catch on are the words that resonate. Words have power when they work, and they don't when they don't. We need a word that's defiant. A fuck-you word that's fun to say, and that makes the old power structure kinda blink back tears and stare at its shoes in profound embarrassment every single fucking time we say it.
Meanwhile, in the "A Rose by Any Other Name" Department: this is the creative moment for which I feel I was born. I make books, movies, and music with the fungasmic ferocity and non-conformist spirit I think we're all discussin' here. Always lookin' for cool, kind-hearted wildasses to art-o-tain with! THANKS, TED!!! LET'S DO IT!!!
Yer pal in the trenches,
Skipp
Correct - NonDe isn't going to catch fire. What about just cleaning up and redefining "Indie" rather than vilifying it?
I don't think it's a matter of vilifying. Indie's still a good word. I think it's just that the air has gone out of that tire. And that we won't be able to resurrect it with any juice at all until it has left the conversation for awhile.
So for now, let's let something else with some REAL juice do the job. Then, when indie comes back, we'll have actually missed it. HOPE THAT MAKES SENSE!
Agree. When you label you categorize, commoditization comes soon after. Think of the music categories you used to see in record stores: Rock, Pop, Classical, Country, and if you’re lucky, Jazz Nd Blues. I know a used book/album/CD chain that combines Jazz and Easy Listening into one category. Annoys me every time I see it! Don’t focus on the label, focus on what is being created.
You know what term NEVER lost its punch? PUNK. Maybe we can adjust that one to fit?
It has old connotations now, that at least in my head scream "nothing i want to watch or hear". But even if others dont feel those particular implications from the word, they likely do feel something that will be hard to shake in a redefining.
Movements are generally named by the mainstream and the label is rejected by the artists who lead them.
Fair enough! Unless somebody makes up something powerful (or at least hilarious) first!
How about Alter (Ego) Cinema?
I believe the concept of community should be included in this name. The same way independent music was referring to artists that did not want to do things mainstreamly, the new term should talk about the power of not being alone.
How about sth like Hub Music? Co-op Music? U-Music (United & Unique)?
I think the "new economic models" part is the one to focus on most. Artist-forward places like Bandcamp are a great start, but systemic change (affordable housing, healthcare, etc.) would reap the biggest rewards. They're also the hardest sell.
I think you make a really important point here. Despite the “democratisation” of music making with the advent of DAWs on computers / phones etc what I think this really means is that a lot of music gets made in people’s spare time (if they have any). Production tools have helped people to fashion finished stuff more cheaply but many people just don’t have the time to develop a voice because they’re struggling to make ends meet and running 2 or 3 jobs at the same time. In the 80s and 90s I was a student unburdened by loan and then did several jobs but still had time to spend literally hours and hours every week making music.
If we can return to a time when we’re not rent slaves then perhaps people will have more time to experiment and find new forms.
Exactly! Thank you for illustrating my point way better than I did. 😀
To be fair you wrote the abstract and I wrote the waffle bit!
This is a good point; retirement is a wonderful thing, for this and many other reasons. In my case, I have no desires or ambitions directed towards putting the stuff I do into circulation, but it's great fun working away and hopefully improving at it.
I realise that retirement is a luxury that may be a long way away for some folks, and I wish everyone in that particular situation all the best in finding a way to make this work. Has to be better than AI slop and the crumbs that drop from Spotify and the rest
“I believe in the noble, aristocratic art of doing absolutely nothing. And I hope someday I'll be in a position where I can do even less. “ *
I can’t recall who said this but I’ve always liked it. In reality as I myself approach the time when I should be thinking about retirement I am busier with personal creative projects than ever - to the casual observer it might look , however, like I’m doing “nothing”
*sample appears on Satyricon by Meat Beat Manifesto (1992)
I agree that housing and health care are big issues that need changing, but I'm not sold on the idea that this is what's keeping people from making music. If someone has a free hour, do they jump on the DAW and work on some music or do they doomscroll? I imagine for most people it's the latter.
Doesn't have to be doom scrolling, there's always sport, though that's indistinguishable from doom scrolling often enough (Melbourne Demons, AFL).
And about politics, the less said the better.
Well not entirely housing no - I guess I used it as an example. But yes doomscrolling and its ability to collapse time and creativity.
I agree with this, too.
After a lifetime of music, storytelling, and creative ventures that culminated with the investment into a digital production studio (with money I couldn't afford to spend) and the launch of a doomed publishing house, I've spent the last few months dubious of my artistic design, overcome by my apparent inability to connect and participate in the spaces I feel called. I've taken a soul-sucking day job for the first time in a decade, and I feel more isolated by the day.
Nevertheless, I can't shake the embers and ideas within me to build something different and better with independent artists—to tell new stories and reclaim a culture that's been commodified by corporations, devalued by platforms, and scared into the shadows by the existential threats of AI. Nothing feels like "the people's" anymore because nothing is. Creativity is now "content," and content is nothing if not wholly disposable.
As a Xennial, I've witnessed our stories, ideas, dreams, and passions—the movies, books, and music that shaped our worlds—watered down and sold back to us my entire young adult/adult life. Everything's recycled; everything's repackaged; nothing is new in "pop culture" (whatever that means anymore). Where are our Spielbergs, our Princes, our Bowies, our De Niro's, our studio heads, our governance, our academics, our traditions? Where is our culture—the culture of the digital age? (Which is our collective culture, of course, not just my cohorts; I only use that time frame as an example.)
This is a massive problem, one I have ideas about tackling. But I'm a nobody, an unknown fish in an unending ocean, and the tides are rising faster than I can tread, trying to raise four kids in a flooded world.
Ted, I appreciate how your posts always seem to come at the right time, reminding me we can still swim. That things can shift—that they WANT to shift. That we're not so alone. Thank you.
Much of this terrible crushing of the indie ecosystem came from pricing out cheap urban life in major cities. I was a student at a certain school in that Palo Alto about 35 years ago, and plenty of indie life was at hand around the Bay Area. PA still had its beloved indie movie theater, its indie arcade, and indie bookstores, as well as the charming 24-hour creamery started circa WWI and surviving the Great Depression.
The wash of Big Tech money began destroying that world in the late 90s, then demolished what was left after 2008. First and foremost was the devastating tripling and quadrupling of commercial rents. Residential rents went from a tad expensive to absurd, then absurd squared. Gentrification doesn't start to capture the change. Even well-paid people have a hard time making ends meet in such areas.
The story is the same in the ultra pricey traditional urban centers of creative culture. Even Austin is expensive now. What will be the geography of Ted's new culture?
Actually, there’s something happening outside the algorithms and the most popular social media, and you’ll only see it if you’re not there. I think you start to notice it as soon as you step away from that ecosystem.
Preach!
In fact, there is EVERYTHING happening outside that ecosystem. Real fucking life is happening, as it always has, and it really is the place to be. I think the social media/platform world is a cheap substitute, and thats so obvious when youre not in it. And i even see that idea growing in younger generations. They see it more for what it is, not the idea of it we were all sold. It boils down to a scrolling dopamine addiction, and its a pretty shitty addiction at that.
There’s the rub - as a consumer, my advice is to free your life of social media, but what’s an artist to do? That is the point to Ted article today.
That is the rub. I think what its going to come down to for artists is do you want to peddle your wares to scrolling addicts, or that sliver of the population(but a sliver thats now growing, i think) that can actually appreciate your work? And yeah, we need a way for artists to connect to that sliver.
Idk anything about any of the arts and how they actually get made and propagated. Ik what i like, and ik ive completely turned away from getting my music or video(broad category) from any kind of streaming platform. I buy cds and dvds and books(the paper ones). Bc to me the problem is the delivery system. Once i decided i hate youtube ive never looked back. Bc yt was ruining music for me, with all the manipulative shit it does. If i cant get it in a physical media i own and can use how i choose, i dont want it.
These seem to be the only choices rn. But i think any attempt to use a streaming service to promote an artistic creation is subject to this corruption, so i dont think the answer lies there.
I dont understand why we walked away from ipod/download tech for music. From there its easy to put it on cd(as i would) or use a device to carry my music. I could buy an album directly from an artist, have my physical copy, the artist gets paid, and theres no tech overlord middleman trying to fuck with me(or the artist). To me thats a place to start.
But until people see streaming/scrolling for what it really is, and become willing to walk away from that, nobodies going to be put effort into developing any alternative.
Of course, but the internet has changed real life too. For example, back in the day, if your band had a gig, you had to go out and put up posters. Social media erased that. What I mean is, something’s shifting even within the internet itself, and that shift will echo out into the real world too.
You may be right. Truth be told i wouldnt know, im not there enough to notice it, yet anyway.
Seems like social media might be erasing the gigging too.. at least ive heard such rumblings here, and i cant remember the last time i heard any real people talking about a show. It used to be a thing in my town. But youre right, the posters are gone. Maybe thats why nobody goes to shows. Do people really remember what they see on their social media feeds? But you see a poster, if you take the time to read it, youll remember the date and location.
Point being, yes social media has had an effect, but maybe not the assumed beneficial effect, such as doing a good job of advertising shows for bands, that it at first seems to. And maybe people are just too lazy to go to shows bc theyre busy on their phones lol.
So what is this shift youre seeing? Can you elaborate, for an internet hermit such as myself lol? I see teds posts, the nyt morning emails, and live science email, and not much else. Well and ofc googling answers or pictures(i do love being able to see any ancient historic site i might be reading about, and wikipedia is still pretty useful, with a grain of salt). Id like to know what youre seeing and expecting
Actually, as Ted rightly points out, people are going to concerts more and more. Everything happening is kind of counterintuitive, in a way, there’s a growing rejection of virtuality. It’s not that people will suddenly stop using the internet, because the internet itself isn’t bad, but the big social networks are. And here’s the point: how much shorter can they make videos? How much more can they flood you with ads? What’s the limit? Maybe we’re reaching that limit.
What I’m seeing is the rise of platforms like Substack and the widespread dissatisfaction with networks like Facebook and Instagram. While it’s not total yet, these are signs that something is shifting. All those networks are run by people who genuinely believe you’ll leave your kids with a robot, that’s the future they want. They won’t succeed. Nobody wants to talk to a fking robot when they have a problem.
Reality is becoming (and will be) the scarcest resource, and therefore the most valuable. I’m not saying we’ll see a revolution in the next few years (maybe we will), but there’s no doubt this algorithmic-accelerationist model is starting to crack, and in those cracks, things begin to happen. Changes in the logic we operate by.
For example? Until recently, the only advice you heard for promoting your music was stuff like “grow your audience, increase your online presence, optimize content for engagement or visibility,” etc., etc., etc. There’s so much saturation that nobody cares anymore. But what if you tried a different approach?
I have a label. Not long ago, I opened a call for a Dark Ambient tribute to The Cure. The compilation has 20 different artists. The album was a success, I sold copies worldwide. Each of those artists promoted it because they were part of it. I didn’t do promotion; they did it for me because what I did was useful for them.
Maybe it’s time to take the word “community” away from these tech bros and give it back the real meaning it deserves. What they call the past might actually be the future.
I would just hope that indie or whatever comes next is not like free jazz, which in my opinion, took many years of valuable production away from some great artists (including the last years of Coltrane). New can be great. It can also be a disaster (like, in my view, most disco, rap and a lot of pop music). There is so much great old music that new technology has made available to us that I don't worry that I dislike what's new. Some people I know are satisfied with just a few albums their whole lives. I need thousands, but I probably have a core group of several thousand pieces that keep me happy. And I'm happy some artists are content to keep varying older type music without falling off the cliff.
lol dude free jazz “took years of production” from Coltrane and others? what the hell does that even mean? jazz isn’t a museum piece my dude. it evolved and keeps evolving like any other genre. Coltrane’s later albums are legendary for not sticking to his legacy but innovating and exploring outer space. don’t get stuck in nostalgia! Ted talks a lot about that in this space.
Of course it evolves. By the way I've read Ted on free jazz. He's very open in his book The History of Jazz that some critics and artists seemed to think the worse the better. There were some artists who understood how to just walk that line as even Coltrane did early on and as Pharaoh Sanders did afterwards - sometimes. But most free jazz was just horrible screeching. No melody, no harmony - just distortion and dissonance. I could play it, because you don't need to know how to play. I've listened to my 6-year-old grandson play better music than I've heard in free jazz. By the way, I've listened to many hours of free jazz trying to give it a chance, because I do that with all "music." It's just horrible. It's not about evolution or having an open mind. There are other types of music I don't particularly like, but I don't put them in the same category. Some things are just bad. That's why, thankfully, it's pretty much gone and jazz, though not very popular, survives and continues to evolve.
Disagree with your broad swipe at musicians playing frre jazz not knowing how to play. Many of the original free jazz pioneers could play “normal” jazz quite well For example, Ornette Coleman was perfectly capable of playing Charlie Parker style bebop, he just felt compelled to push forward. Not all his music works, but when it does, it’s beautiful in its own strange way. Listen to his seminal piece Lonely Woman - it’s haunting.
Barry, when did I take a broad swipe at musicians playing free jazz? I actually called them "great musicians." It is the music they chose to play that I think is bad and I'm hardly alone. Since this is Ted's Substack, let me quote from his "The History of Jazz" (which described the music and musicians but did not give his own opinion; my own opinion is based on hours of listening to Taylor, Coleman, Coltrane, Cherry, Williams, Sanders, Ayler and others playing free jazz - hoping I would like it):
". . . [T]he true believers and caustic dissenters had, perhaps, more in common than they realized. Some listeners no doubt found a soothing catharsis in Coltrane's "Ascension" or Albert Ayler's "Spiritual Unity," yet it is clear that many delighted precisely in the music's foreboding exterior. This latter group never pretended that shrill overtone squeals and distorted quarter-tone barks sounded mellifluous; it may not be going too far that worse the music sounded, the better it suited their needs. . . .
. . . One jazz critic, exulting in exactly this harsh exterior of the most progressive music, went so far as to brag that the records he recommended were precisely those that people were least likely to enjoy. . . ."
There's a reason this has largely faded away. In the few times in my life when I was somewhere that jazz was playing in a host's home or restaurant, it was never free jazz - and I have to believe the reason is b/c people don't like screeching and disordered music, except during some periods when it is temporarily faddish. They like melodies, harmonies, sonorous notes, chords and beauty. It is no different with classical music - we are still listening to Bach, Beethoven and Mozart, not Schoenberg.
BTW, some, like Coltrane and Pharoah Sanders made some great pieces which had some few elements of free jazz (like overblowing) that was wonderful. Sanders' "Karma" is one of my favorite albums. But they weren't (then, at least) doing away with everything else that made music beautiful. I have, in fact, listened multiple times, to "Lonely Woman" and whole Coleman albums. LW has a compelling rhythm, but it is not fun to listen to for me. I tried to like it.
In short, I enjoy experimentation in music. I liked or loved Miles Davis in every stage of his career as a leader, and he was constantly after the new. In my opinion, he never went completely overboard and gave up his musicianship just to be different. Taste is taste and we all may like whatever we like. Personally, as my original comment indicated, I hope new music doesn't again follow this path. Young people, in particular, seem attracted to things which will make others cringe. I just don't want to hear it.
Of course, feel free to differ. But I didn't take a swipe at anyone. And please don't take any of the above personally. I like discussing music.
In 1966 (I think), I took a bunch of college friends to the Village Theater in NYC to an Ornette Coleman and John Coltrane concert. Coleman played a screeching plastic violin and Coltrane, with Pharoah Sanders and others , assaulted the audience with a constant barrage of screaming saxes and aggressive sounds (both occasionally broke into something sweet, but only occasionally). My friends were confused and appalled, and I tried to explain but not convincingly. But: I remember this concert fully, and have been to lots of music before and since which I can barely recall. So I now I carry the free jazz movement as a part of my deeper musical understanding, from experiencing it live. And yes, I saw Ornette Coleman many years later, playing with two basses, and the music then was beautiful (and also memorable). But disruptions and changes are all part of the growth in art forms, not to be dismissed as wasteful or irrelevant. It's a story I carry through this long life.
I am not dismissing anything, Lenny. Free jazz was, in my view, a part of the artistic cycle, where musicians and other artists start out with a lot of rules, some good, some not important and some bad. Over time, musicians and other artists start to shed rules and try new things one by one. Eventually, they start to shed those that are important. It was the same with orchestral music in the early 20th century, as I noted above, the same with art with some abstract work, and so on. But I really don't think these periods last long, even if some other musicians try them out. Eventually, especially if they want to be appreciated by a lot of people, they head back to the rules that matter.
Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington are both credited with saying (I doubt either coined it) something to the effect that there are two kinds of music. Good music and bad music. They (they said) played the good kind. If they, generally considered among the greatest of jazz musicians, can say it, why can't I? I think free jazz is the bad kind.
Totally agree, except that rap is a disaster.
I was ten when straight outta compton came out, rap is definitely the music of my generation. I can tell you in the rap genre there is some serious musical genius type talent out there. And honestly i cant think of a genre that has a more diverse sound profile(which im sure is hilarious to people who feel rap all sounds the same lol. But anybody who says anything all "blanks" the same is really saying theyve closed their mind to that thing, bc nothing with any breadth is all the same. Like disco, which i hate, all sounds the same to me, and im ok with my mind being closed to disco lol). Not trying to convince you you should like rap, but to call it a disaster is not giving it the credit it deserves.
But everything else you said exactly describes how i see the music situation. There is so much music already that im happy exploring whats already here, be that revisiting or discovering what i missed.
I wonder how much of that is linked to age. I remember at some point thinking nothing new was fitting into my tastes and that was ok bc what i really wanted was music that sounded like what i liked from 15-35, maybe 40ish. And i feel that way about older music too, like id rather hear the led zeppelin albums i had when i was in high school over the ones id never gotten around to. But then when i do feel that need for "new", THEN i hit those albums i hadnt yet heard.
So yeah it really doesnt matter to me what they make at this point. If it turns out to be something i like, cool, and if not, im already good
I have also spent many hours listening to rap and getting recommendations from younger people about what I might possibly like. In its whole history I can find about 10 songs I enjoyed, which I have on a playlist, but they are something more than just rap, crossovers. Two are by Prince. If you have someone or some album you think might change my mind, let me know. I would listen to it.
I realized that most people are trapped with the music they grow up with, and I was very fortunate to have discovered classical and jazz when I was young. I love rock too and little bits of pretty much most types of music. I try very hard to keep my mind open and I wish I could say that about almost anyone else I know, when it comes to music. 99% of my friends find it intolerable to listen to anything but their favorite subgenre. I feel bad for them. Can't help it. There's so much great music out there.
I will make a recommendation but honestly, i get it. Not liking a genre seems as natural to me as liking another, and it is what it is. And then, if you dont know the music its hard to appreciate why this is good or that isnt. For instance, you could play some jazz for me and i wouldnt know if it was good or bad. Best i could do is tell you if i like it or not and see if that lines up with the general consensus. On the other hand if you played me like 10 albums i think i could pick out the good from the bad. Anyway im digressing here lol
So my recommendation rn would be Fabolous' three mixtapes, summertime shootout 1-3. They play more like albums, with a cohesiveness you rarely come across in rap albums, let alone mixtapes. Theres alot more going on with the music than just his rapping, the whole package is very well crafted. I personally think #3 is the best, which exactly the opposite of what i thought when i first heard them. But they are all pretty good, and definitely have that reputation with people that like rap.
Id totally be interested to hear what you think, if you do get to check them out. To me they are definitely fabs magnum opus, and are stellar examples of rap/hip hop done right.
I'll give a listen. You never know.
Also the soul tape 3, by the same artist. I think that might actually be a better recommendation for you. Its a more mellow vibe, and a little deeper too. Try that one first, fabolous soul tape 3
I am 79 and no longer able to do live gigs, which is the only way to make real money these days.
I do have well over a hundted songs posted on Substack, 50 of which are new since 2024.
I am very much an indie.
Jealous of you. I'm only 65 and just started to practice piano.
Thrilled to see Filmstack mentioned in the hallowed pages of the Honest Broker! This got me curious - are there other arts communities working to create new systems or models like this?
Great article. But the altered chord does NOT have a G natural in it
People are fact-checking my jokes now.
I never joke about harmony. (Well, yes we can joke about it)
Haha! I was about to do the same thing! Raising AND lowering the ninth, including the 11th and not altering the 5th but flattening the 13th. Yeah, alt chords allow for interpretation, but that was a bit much!
You’re proposing a structure to give “indie” a space, but the root of Indy or indie is that it had no structure, no space to operate in. It made its own rules with its own structure. The alt music and indie films were born organically from a revolt against the mainstream. The only way for that to happen again is on its own. You can’t force a movement, only support one when it blossoms.
The main (perhaps only) thing I learned in college was this: Art is nothing without institutionalization. Here's what I mean (and what the industry understands): If you have enough outliers, meaning artists or ideas, they eventually coalesce into something that can be taught. Can be MARKETED. The artist eclipses boundaries, but eventually defines what they've become. The next generation learn that definition and launch beyond it.
What happened is that everyone was independent. We all uploaded whatever wherever, had access to the world equally. A few people got lucky. Marketers latched onto that and asked the rest of us to do what the lucky people did, because they didn't have a budget like they used to. Even in the "good old days," only about a dozen people could make a living off of poetry. Nowadays the big box publishers will only invest in those 12 people, leaving everyone else to fend for themselves.
What you're saying is that we have, as independents, reached a critical mass in which some sort of filtering is necessary. As a person who's read slush for litmags, I assure you this is true. We need parameters not only for investors and marketers, for for the audience to filter their limited bandwidth into something that will benefit them. There is literally somebody out there writing or recording what you want to read. Vampire unicorns in polyamorous street gangs? Absolutely. But how do you find them? Keywords, they say. Metadata. But wouldn't it be great to gather them into an arena where quality has also been vetted before the reader burns out? Yes. That's where we are.
The outline provided is a good step forward. It's going to lead people whose talent is opportunism to create a platform they can monetize. That's all you get. Get on it.
I agree with your opening paragraph, but where you end sounds too much like gate keeping.
I can see that. The hard thing to convey is that there really are levels to creativity. You can absolutely present your work to the world when you think it's ready. If it's not ready, the audience will let you know. But feed them too much first-draft rawness, they will burn out. Not everything is ready to be presented to the audience. Right now, equal access is causing some of the symptoms we used to attribute to the publishers, because in the past only the slush readers were getting burnt out.
From an organizer's perspective - festival, conference, rt curator, litmag publisher - you have to make choices. Some are based on the quality of the work; some are based on how it fits in with the rest of the show/exhibit/stable of published authors. A show has cohesion; it tells a story comprised of disparate parts. As a slush reader, I can tell you that a lot of people think they're ready to publish but really, really aren't. The slush reader have to give everyone a chance. So "gatekeeping" is as nebulous a concept as publication.
An example of true gatekeeping is the Victorian trend of not publishing women because they are women. The current trend of spotlighting an act's social minority status is not true gatekeeping, because the creator already passed several quality hurdles. They are good enough. Telling the audience they're brown or disabled is a market angle (not disingenuously.)
Was there (for example) a normal, healthy white guy whose work was also being considered? Yes. Did the disability factor into the voting process? Probably not, unless the author had no arms and no legs and was brilliant writing. Which book puts forward our vision for our publishing house? That's why editors might say your work is "not a good fit for us at this time." Why you need to research publishers.
There's not much true gatekeeping anymore. KDP and Lulu will let you publish your book, because they understand that writers *are* a market. Same with musicians and Bandcamp, Soundcloud, etc. Marketing teams know there's a market somewhere, and weigh in (if the editors ask them) according to how easily they can access that market. That's been my experience - from both sides.
Another thing people sometimes forget to consider when seeking publication...an author friend who's published 30+ books once said to me: "So your story is about cancer. Have you gone to the National Book Festival and seen how many cancer books there are? What makes yours different?" He's a cancer survivor when he says this. He is right.
What makes yours different has to be something people can pick up on if they don't personally know you. It has to be something other than "This is how the world looks to me" because that's literally every book. If you can say "This is how the world looks to me as a _______________________" AND YOUR WORK BACKS THAT UP, then you have something to tell the publishers.
I’m convinced the future will have to strike some balance to achieve the best of both worlds: digital egalitarianism and industry patronage. Ross Barkan talked about this with his idea of the mesoculture. Above all, though, I think it will require more in-person (ie, not online) engagement: a return to the community aspect of artistic enjoyment and consideration: theaters, readings, concerts, clubs, etc.
Amen Ted! It is great to see some positive chat around the future of whatever indie culture is turning into. So much of late has been broadly negative - and with good reason - but in the face of that, it is welcome indeed to see some focus on how things might eventually get better. Here's to it coming sooner rather than later.
Let´s remember that the current media scenario is fragmented into NICHES.
Beyond the Spotify algorithm and the main tech players in the music business, there are several different niches. Each of them is an indiependent channel that funnels niche musicians.