[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index][
Thread Index][
Author Index]
re:What does it mean to you, to "release a record"?
About releasing digital releases of your music,
Per Boysen wrote:
"IMHO this digital age also means that you should be even more careful,
than in the old days, to only release the top quality of your work.
The reason for this view is that with digital distribution there is no
limited issue that will sell out at some point in the future, as with
physical media like CD, vinyl and DVDs. Digital releases will stay
available for ever. A smaller quantity of music is just as easy to
find in search- and recommendation engines as a huge artist catalog.
This also may makes it more relevant to talk about "launching" than
"releasing". "
I see your point, Per. It's well thought out and I respect it, but I
have a slightly different perspective
to share.
Sometimes the fact that an artist is very prolific (if they back it up
with quality of course)
can be a very attractive attribute. It can tell us something about their
artistry.
I think of an artist like Robert Pollard of Guided By Voices fame. He
releases 2 to 3 releases every
year and has for decades. Because of the quality of his work, he has
hard core fans who snap up
everything he releases and older physical versions of his records
(especially in collectable forms like
colored vinyl or accompanying artwork----he's a really excellent collage
artist) fetch really high
prices. Arguably because he is not a mass acceptance style of artist,
it could be argued that he can
make a living with his artistry ONLY because he is prolific. If , like
most artists, he releases a record
every couple of years or so, he probably wouldn't be able to make a
living doing what he's doing.
I think about someone like our own Erdem Helvacioglu, who is ridiculously
and excitingly ambitious
and in the process of making records with a very large number of people in
different genres,
seemingly simultaneously. His ambition
alone will really serves his reputation, I think. I , myself, think,
"wow, what's he going to do next?
.........it puts him on my own artistic radar precisely because he is
prolific.
I, myself, really want to express myself in many different ways: as a
live looping/found sound artist,
a toy video 'animator', an acoustic singer/songwriter (that's coming up in
the future he says,
gulping!), a goth/industrial pop artist, an noise/experimental artist, a
world ethnic fusion artist and
a jazz artist so in order dto express myself, I have to be prolific as an
artist.
In my own case, I don't know whether this hurts me in terms of ultimate
number of sales (the
diversity and number of releases) but it brings up another salient point:
In my own career, being prolific both in terms of creating new venues ,
associating myself with
different styles of music that I love, putting out releases, et. al.
has helped my career and my
reputation to the point that people will frequently hire me to do
concerts, lectures, seminars,
productions, commissions for modern dance and video/films, collaborate,
etc., etc.
In this way, being prolific really helps me out, even if I don't have
high record sales.
*******
A great visual artist once said something to the effect that
"being prolific as an artist is an act of spiritual generosity'
To me, just putting out a high volume of work (if your hearts really
deeply into it)
sometimes is an end unto itself and the fact that we put it out to the
world, is
a form of generosity.
There also is the smaller phenomenon that occasionally people want to
support an artist just because
they admire them or because they actually want a high quality audio or
visual experience
that transcends the downloadable MP3 world that is our present dominant
paradigm.
One of the ways of getting people's attention is by being prolific,
artistically.
It's not, of course, the only way, but it is A way.