HI Ryan, On Mar 22, 2013, at 3:41 PM, Ryan Tanaka <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ernie, thanks for the thoughtful responses -- it's a complicated issue but > I'll try to be as clear as I can.
Thanks, it is great to try to get personal with the Hollywood - Valley dialogue. :-) > Talking to some industry vets, there was a period in time where Hollywood > really "invested" in their talent, so if an artist showed promise, they would > have have given them positions or residencies that's akin to a salaried > position in a company. Here a distinction needs to be made between the > mega-stars and the "average" artist, the latter of whom would contribute > their skills toward a bigger project (movies, music, performances) under a > larger umbrella, but still can carve out a decent living for themselves if > they were good and worked hard. Most of the products we'd label as being > "landmarks" (I dunno, Star Wars) comes from a collective effort of many > people working together, as with many things, including software and video > games. With you so far. > The internet, however, promises every young artist that they too, can be a > super-star. Not everyone can, of course, but the opportunity in itself is > often enough to get people to put up their work, often without looking for > anything in return. Whoa, slow down. As I remember it, *Hollywood* invented the idea that everyone could potentially be a super-star. You just had to be good-looking and work in the right restaurant. :-) And jump on the right casting couch. :-P > But in reality, these companies have no real track record of building real > careers for artists, so its an economy that largely runs on people's sense of > vanity. Wait, are you claiming that Hollywood does *not* largely run on ego and vanity? :-) More seriously, I think we're talking about several different things that are going on here. Note that all of these of happened a decade ago to music, and five years ago to software development, so I don't think Hollywood has any right to think they're special. a) Distribution costs have been enormously lowered, so it is easy for anyone to publish their own work. b) Talent is still unevenly distribution. Yes, there are few superstars, and the long tail mostly only makes money for the new middleman. However, there's a new "middle class" of talent that is able to make a viable living doing niche art that simply wasn't possible before. c) There is still a market for AAA content with high production values -- but those now have to compete with both alternate forms of entertainment, and piracy. Still with me so far? > What ends up happening is that occasionally someone will generate enough hits > on YouTube or somewhere else -- only to be picked up by one of the Hollywood > studios when they decide to get more "serious". And the knowledge and > training you receive behind the spotlight is akin to what "artist > development" is -- contrary to its image, it's actually a very tightly > controlled process only made to look chaotic or rebellious. Yes, that is *one* thing that happens -- but not the only thing. You can see this in a more mature form in book publishing, or even blogging. Early on, the only viable "exit" was to get picked up by a "real" publisher. But now, saying "indie" is a completely viable choice. There's tons of one-man shops who earn decent to awesome livings writing columns or producing comic strips. Even audio, which is more multi-person than writing but less so than video, is already becoming disrupted by podcasts. Podcasts: Why the future sounds funny - Features - Comedy - The Independent > Like everyone during the internet boom, I was enamored by the possibilities > of the new media landscape, but after attempting to do things the DIY way I > began to run into a lot of walls that forced me to change my position on the > issue. Off the top of my head, this is what a musician needs, if they're > serious about making a living in this manner: > > 1) Make good music, of course. > 2) Publicity/Marketing > 3) Booking (Gigs) > 4) Distribution > 5) Equipment, Audio Engineering > 6) Legal > 7) Financial > 8) Merchandise > 9) Management (If it's an ensemble) Of course *some* people will choose to get bought out by the 'traditional' route. But others will discover that they can rely on 'thin' intermediaries to provide those services. Not just at lower cost -- but without having to give up *control* over the end result: Louis C.K. Video Inspires New Business Model For Comedians > Now even if you're a 1-man band, you'll still need all of this just to be > even barely noticeable. It's impossible for any one person to do this, so > eventually there's a need to find help in these areas...and ironically, > things end up going full circle because the people who have experiences in > these areas are still working in Hollywood, not in the Valley. Chances are > also good that you'll end up making less than before after everyone takes a > share of their cut, since they're not unified under a single company which > might have lowered some of the overhead. Try telling that to Amanda Palmer: WHERE ALL THIS KICKSTARTER MONEY IS GOING, by amanda palmer The official website of Amanda Palmer. Yes it is - Amanda Palmer Yes, she's not typical. But typical musician (or actor) never makes *any* money; even after a big record deal, after a while. Now more people have a chance to succeed by building a relationship with fans, rather than being reliant on the whims of record companies. Digital Music News - Musicians Are Better Off Than Ever Before In History. And Here's Proof... > The Valley imitating Hollywood won't be enough -- they'll have to build the > infrastructure from the ground up, maybe stealing some talent from the other > side, build their plan for how they want to be percieved by the public for > the long-term. It's possible, but I think a lot of techies tend to > underestimate how difficult this can be, since they tend to underestimate the > value of culture in general. Google I know had a few Hollywood executives > consult them on how to manage the content on YouTube -- if Steve Jobs was > alive he probably could've taken his Pixar projects to the next level...but > it's hard to tell if there's a successor in existence who's as invested in > the idea than he was. Still, giving content producers a small slice of the > pie was, I believe, a step in the right direction. If they made the returns > a little more substantial, I could see professionals putting in a little more > effort and time into their online projects. Heck, I'll agree with you that those skills are more often in Hollywood rather than the Valley. But even in Hollywood the smaller "thin" intermediaries are finding different ways to wreak havoc with the existing "supply chain" of talent, e.g.: Funny Or Die Pulling In Tens Of Millions In Revenue Thanks To Freedom, Cheapness | TechCrunch Funny or Die: Funny or Die expands comedic reach - Los Angeles Times " the revenues still may be nothing compared to what traditional Hollywood gets, the key is that the overhead costs are a fraction of the costs of what they are in Hollywood." The real battle isn't between the Valley and Hollywood; it is between the old heavyweight business model and the new lighter one. Of course there will still be a need for talent, capital, and mentorship. But those will become disaggregated, and the playing field will be much more level. > In regards to meritocracy, the main problem right now is that there is > combination of the economic devaluation of art (do it for free) combined with > a pervasive cultural relativism that makes it impossible for anyone to gauge > what "quality" is. Shows like American Idol is sort of silly but it's kind > of a peek into what an artist has to go through in order to hone in on their > craft -- the honest and sometimes harsh judgments made by people > knowledgeable in their fields. The fact that these shows have become > immensely popular is not a coincidence to me...it's what the people want, and > where the opportunities in the future lies. I have to take issue with "the economic devaluation of art (do it for free)." People have been doing art for free for thousands of years! The last half-century where art was primarily something consumed from professionals was an aberration, and IMHO not a very healthy one. If Hollywood can't compete with free, it needs to get into a different business. Musicians, by and large, already have: The Technium: Better Than Free But that doesn't mean people won't pay. They still will, if they like the content: The Billionaire Movie Club: The 15 Highest Grossing Films of All Time - IGN The question of quality is tricky. I am no fan of cultural relativism, but neither am I keen to defend the "cultural elitism" that determined what Hollywood did and didn't make. The reality is that now we have an explosion of content, and the old gatekeepers are no longer in power. We need to choose new curators to help us find what is worthy, which is already happening in various ways. In fact, the only real bottleneck *I* see is that there isn't a good economic option for "medium" form video a la television. Short-form content does fine on YouTube, and long-form movies are increasingly getting funding from Kickstarter. Will The "Veronica Mars" Kickstarter Revolutionize Indie Film That trend will only increase as a) production costs go down, and b) audiences (and actors) feel loyalty to a director rather than a production company. Where things fall down is in the middle, where you need to fund a series of television shows. Right now, only the TV networks have the capital and skills to place a big bet and find the right audience. But I'll be shocked if that's the case in five years. Sorry for the rambling. Does that make any more sense? Or at least help you identify the areas where we disagree? -- Ernie P. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
