# Food or art: How do you survive as an artist?



## Guest (Mar 5, 2008)

This a tangent to the long discussion that ensued in this thread.

How do you make enough money as an artist to survive? To eek out a living?

Kevin Kelly has a theory called the 1000 True Fans theory. I think it's pure genius. You have to read that post. I'll give a quick snippet here but the whole post is worth the 5 minute it'll take to injest it.


> But the point of this strategy is to say that you don't need a hit to survive. You don't need to aim for the short head of best-sellerdom to escape the long tail. There is a place in the middle, that is not very far away from the tail, where you can at least make a living. That mid-way haven is called 1,000 True Fans. It is an alternate destination for an artist to aim for.


If you can, through direct contact, maintain the 1000 true fan connection you can, in theory, live. Thrive. Make exactly the art you want -- or more likely the art you think your 1000 true fans want, which is probably close to the art you want because they're _true fans_. Not fringe fans.

We were discussing the alternate approaches. Well, not shooting for the mega-hit and not trying to play the long tail (a loosing game anyways), but instead going for the 1000 true fans is a very viable idea if you want to survive as an artist.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...i never thought i'd say this, but: thank goodness for day jobs.

recently, over a beer with an old friend, i was bemoaning the fact that i have to show up every day for my plushy desk job instead of waking up and picking up my guitar. he put in perspective: "don't you realize how lucky you are? musically and artistically, you have the freedom to do anything you want."

changed my whole outlook.

-dh


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2008)

david henman said:


> "don't you realize how lucky you are? musically and artistically, you have the freedom to do anything you want."
> 
> changed my whole outlook.


That's a pretty astute observation for sure. It's always a struggle to figure out where you lie on the what-you-want-to-do versus what-sells curve.


----------



## suttree (Aug 17, 2007)

i'm struggling with this one myself. in the absence of a cushy desk job, i either can do retail work, which pays so little that it's pretty tough to purchase the things you need in life to make your art to the best of your abilities (recording gear may be cheaper than it was, but it still ain't free.... and guitars? don't even get me started); or i can drive trucks (i have an AZ license), which pays a lot more, but the hours are generally such that i can't do anything musical (hard to jam with the band when you're working 70 hours a week, or gone 3 or 4 weeks at a stretch). the clubs around here want to pay so little that i can't see myself making a go of it playing, even in a cover band. i do sound with a partner, and there's a great deal of work in the summer, so that's one income stream. i add to this a few part time jobs, a few sound system install jobs as they come, and guitar teaching. put them all together, and i almost make enough to get by. but i can't say i'm particularly happy about the hustle involved.


----------



## Warren (Mar 2, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...i never thought i'd say this, but: thank goodness for day jobs.
> 
> recently, over a beer with an old friend, i was bemoaning the fact that i have to show up every day for my plushy desk job instead of waking up and picking up my guitar. he put in perspective: "don't you realize how lucky you are? musically and artistically, you have the freedom to do anything you want."
> 
> ...


That's a great way to look at it. For 1000's of years artists lived through patronage. Many artists were commissioned by the Church, some were financed by nobility, Sibelius was pensioned by his government, Albeniz played in bars, etc...(the list is massive). The record deal & recorded media has only been around for a very short time compared to artists making a living. And maybe patronage and benefactors have disappeared because artists in the last century could do well if they were good. 

But maybe because of technology artists have to find alternative financing to have the freedom to actually make art. 

So, we have to be our own benefactors.


----------



## suttree (Aug 17, 2007)

Warren said:


> That's a great way to look at it. For 1000's of years artists lived through patronage. Many artists were commissioned by the Church, some were financed by nobility, Sibelius was pensioned by his government, Albeniz played in bars, etc...(the list is massive). The record deal & recorded media has only been around for a very short time compared to artists making a living. And maybe patronage and benefactors have disappeared because artists in the last century could do well if they were good.
> 
> But maybe because of technology artists have to find alternative financing to have the freedom to actually make art.
> 
> So, we have to be our own benefactors.


yah, or maybe modern business (and the rich elite it creates) has evolved beyond the need to support community, and has become nothing more than a huge parasite sucking the world and our futures dry dry dry. this is also largely true of government.

also, art and music have become marginalized because of the very industry that was built around their talents. the record labels have fought long and hard to create a system where the only acts that make money are the ones that the labels wish to promote (read: highest margin investments, read: lowest risk investments, read: nothing but the same thing that made money last time), and now they've pretty much destroyed their own income base. 

the 1,000 true fans idea is a good one, and it is also pretty clearly (to me) the future of the music industry. the record labels won't be along for the ride, unless i miss my guess.


----------



## Hamm Guitars (Jan 12, 2007)

Work in the music industry. 

From my experience I can't see how spending alot of time working on and recording original material on your own is any better than your chances of making a living purchasing lotery tickets. I supose that there are a few that get some sucess, which gives a glimmer of hope to everyone else.

I run accross musicians all of the time that turn down work due to 'Musical Integrity' and they would rather starve or sort recyclables than play in a show band for more money. I've seen some take years to realize that the entertainment industry has no integrity and to work in it you have to prostitute yourself. In all of my years, I've never seen anyone paid for having musical integrity, but I've seen 'the prostitutes' rake it in.

I say that if you want to make the music that you want to make, you are far better off prostituting yourself in the music business and making money and conections than you are working outside of the music industry and not making any connections.

Most of the musical prostitutes I've known have homes with recording studios in them where they can make the music that they want and record it on their own time. What they are recording is usually vastly different from their music at work. 

Here is one that came up in the last few years:

Someone was offered two record deals. 

The first was a US deal where the artist had no controll over the project, but they would benifit greatly financially by signing.

The second deal was a Canadian deal where the artist could do pretty much what they wanted and had creative freedom (within reason, of course). The financial aspect was somewhat of a gamble.

I suggested that they take the first option, take the money and when the contract expires and is not renewed they would be free to do whatever they wanted, at their own expense.

Some people feel that they should have gone with other deal, as it had more integrity for the artist. I say that that is just pride f*?!king with them.


----------



## RIFF WRATH (Jan 22, 2007)

wanted: 999 fans, apply here.
cheers
RIFF


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2008)

RIFF WRATH said:


> wanted: 999 fans, apply here.
> cheers
> RIFF


----------



## Chito (Feb 17, 2006)

RIFF WRATH said:


> wanted: 999 fans, apply here.
> cheers
> RIFF


You need "TRUE" fans. :smilie_flagge17:


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Well, I'm older and don't want to tour, or scramble for work, or prostitute myself anymore. (And I really did put out for years, playing lots of country/Elvis/pop/drek that I wouldn't have otherwise.) I found that I enjoy, and am good at, teaching. Teaching privately keeps the hounds from the door, and provides my family with a decent standard of living. Sure, it's a "day job", but at least it's in the industry. I gig a little but am always home at night.

As for the art, there is time for jamming, songwriting, improvisation, and experimentation...within my means.

When the clubs stopped paying much (ie disco, karioke, djs, dance videos took over) I refocused on playing what I wanted rather than prostituting myself. No sense being a prostitute if there's no money in it. I ended up playing folk music, even recording and playing festivals with it. A Neil Young cover band was loads of fun too. Subsequent bands have made money but have been more about fun, art, and jamming. 

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Hamm Guitars: Work in the music industry. 

_...good advice. the guys at yamaha gave me that advice many years ago: if you have to work a day job, find one in the music industry._

From my experience I can't see how spending alot of time working on and recording original material on your own is any better than your chances of making a living purchasing lotery tickets. 

_...it has to be its own reward._

I supose that there are a few that get some sucess, which gives a glimmer of hope to everyone else.

_...if you aren't happy doing what you do outside of success, then success will not change that. _

I say that if you want to make the music that you want to make, you are far better off prostituting yourself in the music business and making money and conections than you are working outside of the music industry and not making any connections.

Most of the musical prostitutes I've known have homes with recording studios in them where they can make the music that they want and record it on their own time. What they are recording is usually vastly different from their music at work. 

_...works for some, i'm sure. never did for me. personal fulfillment trumps financial considerations, hands down._

Here is one that came up in the last few years:

Someone was offered two record deals. 

The first was a US deal where the artist had no controll over the project, but they would benifit greatly financially by signing.

The second deal was a Canadian deal where the artist could do pretty much what they wanted and had creative freedom (within reason, of course). The financial aspect was somewhat of a gamble.

I suggested that they take the first option, take the money and when the contract expires and is not renewed they would be free to do whatever they wanted, at their own expense.

_...good idea, in theory. in reality, it always seems to break down._

Some people feel that they should have gone with other deal, as it had more integrity for the artist. I say that that is just pride f*?!king with them.

_...artistic integrity seems to have worked pretty well for folks like bob dylan and neil young, among others. many others.

and, these days, its working quite well for me. i'm far from rich, but my quality of life makes me feel like a billionaire.

-dh_


----------



## Warren (Mar 2, 2007)

david henman said:


> _...artistic integrity seems to have worked pretty well for folks like bob dylan and neil young, among others. many others.
> 
> -dh_


Maybe this would make a better new thread, but here's it is:

Are you sure these artists, lets include Miles Davis also, were not influenced by new trends. Maybe it was more an innate ability to see a new trend while it was still fledgling and localized and then take it mainstream.

One thing Neil, Bob & Miles did very well was change musical directions while still retaining their audience or attracting an entirely new one. Maybe they were just good at realizing that their current group of followers' tastes were changing and they could adapt quickly to it?

If you want 1000 true fans your offering is going to be somewhat catered (maybe only marginally) to their liking, even if only by osmosis (they'll influence your creative direction if you want to keep them)?

Kind of paints them as visionary business people *and* amazingly creative artists.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Maybe this would make a better new thread, but here's it is:

Are you sure these artists, lets include Miles Davis also, were not influenced by new trends. Maybe it was more an innate ability to see a new trend while it was still fledgling and localized and then take it mainstream.

_...many artists take new trends and make them their own. i think that is admirable._

One thing Neil, Bob & Miles did very well was change musical directions while still retaining their audience or attracting an entirely new one. Maybe they were just good at realizing that their current group of followers' tastes were changing and they could adapt quickly to it?

If you want 1000 true fans your offering is going to be somewhat catered (maybe only marginally) to their liking, even if only by osmosis (they'll influence your creative direction if you want to keep them)?

Kind of paints them as visionary business people *and* amazingly creative artists.

_...i agree.

most of my own music is decidedly non-mainstream. at the same time, i write a lot of songs that are clearly mainstream, radio-friendly, commercial and accessible. not intentionally - that's just how they come out. that said, once i see the direction a song is taking, i will consciously PUSH it further in that direction.

like many before me, i have every intention of creating and building my own market, rather than targetting one that already exists.

-dh_


----------



## Warren (Mar 2, 2007)

david henman said:


> _...i agree.
> 
> most of my own music is decidedly non-mainstream. at the same time, i write a lot of songs that are clearly mainstream, radio-friendly, commercial and accessible. not intentionally - that's just how they come out. that said, once i see the direction a song is taking, i will consciously PUSH it further in that direction.
> 
> ...


The geek in me loves this stuff, 

It's not so much the targeting one that exists, I don't think that's what these artists did, it's targeting one that doesn't (sort of doesn't) or targeting your own, building the 1000 loyal fans starting with 1.

I thought of this because of how it parallels a book called The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell (it used to be a free e-book but maybe thats changed since people know who he is know and want to read his stuff). 

It's a series of case studies of businesses (Vans shoes, Sesame Street and others) that developed/created a very focused markets (1000 loyal fans) and how that strategy grew the audience for their product and in some cases how the companies lost their audience because they didn't keep developing it or developed it in the wrong direction (didn't take care of the original audience).

I find the careers of some great musicians (Miles, Bob Dylan, the Beatles, U2, Zappa, Metheny), are very much like the case studies of these businesses, the experimentation fell well within the expectation of the audience. Some, in the case of the non-mainstream ones, like Frisell, may be satisfying their audience because the audience's expectation is only the outcome of experimentation or Krantz who describes the experiment to the audience beforehand, so the audience is connected through understanding. 

To me it seems that for these artists, experimentation was well tempered with a focus to the original fans' expectation, possibly the focus was unintentional because the artist always combined experimention with their own roots (which is what the original fans enjoy & find familiar).


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Warren said:


> The geek in me loves this stuff,
> 
> It's not so much the targeting one that exists, I don't think that's what these artists did, it's targeting one that doesn't (sort of doesn't) or targeting your own, building the 1000 loyal fans starting with 1.
> 
> ...



...well said. 

and, yes, i fully intend to develop my own market, starting with "1" loyal fan...emphasis on _my own_...

and, unlike most, i do look forward to touring when i'm older.

oh, wait...i'm already older.

-dh


----------



## zinga (Apr 22, 2007)

never trun down a free, drink ,food , bed, or a place to stay. for one year i stuck out my thumb and went all over canada. played on coners ppl gave me money and took me home to play at partys or to jam with them. it was great.that is how you do it.all young ppl who play should do this.


----------



## darreneedens (Nov 13, 2007)

I am a starving college student AND musician...

Its nearing on the end of the year... and the cash is wearing very thin.

I am going to school to learn about working in the music industry so hopefully that will work out for me.... 

damn I am hungry lol.


----------



## violation (Aug 20, 2006)

darreneedens said:


> I am a starving college student AND musician...
> 
> Its nearing on the end of the year... and the cash is wearing very thin.
> 
> ...


Ramen noodles my friend! Cheap and somewhat edible... lol.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

violation said:


> Ramen noodles my friend! Cheap and somewhat edible... lol.


The MSG will give you a nasty headaches. You'd be better off eating Kraft Dinner. I used to get a 50lbs bag of potatoes from a farmer (shouldn't be more than 10$ nowadays) and some chicken when it was on sale. Carrots are still cheap.


----------



## darreneedens (Nov 13, 2007)

I go for a lot canned beans, and the fake kraft dinner... PC brand I believe. You can get bagged salad for a buck too lol. I can get pretty creative and come up with some good meals that cost next to nothing.


----------

