Starting with the intention of fame drowns our creativity

[Song80s]

To Reach an Audience of Millions, Create for an Audience of One

 

David Bowie was arguably one of the greatest creatives of the past 50 years. By the time he died, in 2016, he produced no fewer than 36 albums and more than 100 singles.

 

He acted in a few dozen films and exhibited his paintings widely in museums and galleries. He co-wrote a Broadway show and developed an internet platform for creative content called BowieNet. He invented the Verbasizer, a sentence randomizer app for writing lyrics. By any standard, Bowie was wildly successful, both artistically and commercially. As a cultural icon, he achieved more than mere fame.

 

His singular life was studded with innovation, and he practically invented reinvention. Where someone else might have rested in the glam-rock Ziggy Stardust glory days, Bowie zagged with Diamond Dogs and then Young Americans. After that foray into soul, he left for Europe and experimental electronic music. Friend and collaborator Brian Eno explained Bowies fearless shape-shifting as a way to duck the momentum of a successful career and keep his work fresh and interesting, for himself as much as for his audience. No doubt that one crucial common denominator  creating for himself, an audience of one  is what made Bowie a vital, timely, authentic artist right up until his death.

 

If youre in pursuit of pleasing others, its easy to forget exactly why you initially started working on a creative endeavor. Bowie did not forget, saying:

Never play to the gallery. Never work for other people in what you do. Always remember that the reason you initially started working was there was something inside yourself that, if you could manifest it, you felt you would understand more about yourself. I think its terribly dangerous for an artist to fulfill other peoples expectations.

Attempting to fulfill other peoples expectations is a fools errand when it comes to creative work. Its inevitable that you will fail on some level, make compromises you regret, and end up with your worst work. You may or may not find acclaim, but youll be pretty miserable as a creative if you dont follow your heart.

 

Bowie not only believed thathe embodied what it means.

The ultimate paradox of creative work is that what you create for an audience of one is much more likely to reach an audience of millions.

 

 

[Song80s]

Creating for an Audience of One

 

Many creators dream of the day when millions of people will listen to their shows, read their books, buy their products, or watch them perform. But what will you bring to the table when youre performing only for an audience of one;yourself?

 

We tend to undervalue creating only for ourselves and overvalue creating for a huge audience. But your audience of one will be there every day when you wake up. If you think that youll step it up only when the audience is larger, the audience, paradoxically, wont get any larger.

 

While the internet and technology have made unparalleled amounts of creativity possible, they have, ironically, also inhibited the creative process.

 

 

What we control in any creative endeavor is our effort, what we do each day to nurture our creativity and our commitment to the process. Forget about the bestseller lists, the gallery openings, and the shining lights.

 

The creation of fulfilling creative work is the result of losing yourself in the moment. When the work is done, your role comes to an end. The fate of a book, a film, a music album is ultimately out of your hands.

 

You cant control how the world responds. But you can choose to appreciate and acknowledge your effort and simply start again.

 

While separating your work and effort from the results is one of the hardest things to do, its also one of the most important. Otherwise, your sense of satisfaction, fulfillment, happiness, and overall well-being will fluctuate, depending on the results. If the results are largely out of our control anyway, wouldnt we be better served by measuring our success in ways that we have some control over? Are you proud of your work? Would you happily put your signature on it? Have you met or exceeded your own expectations or previous creation?

 

Our creativity speaks louder and more clearly when the work is separated from the results. Starting with the intention of fame and fortune drowns out the sound of our creativity and makes it more difficult for us to listen, resulting in a perpetual lack of fulfillment and an underappreciation of the joy we could experience in the process.

 

[J. Dan]

there have been other threads, one just recently.

 

I've thought a lot about this and mostly have not commented because I don't know how to eloquently and succinctly communicate my opinion.

 

Suffice it to say, after initial success, most artists struggle to follow it up under the pressures of delivering a hit under a time constraint.

 

Some recover, others don't. Aerosmith came back as an example. Bands like RUSH were always talented but anything after Power Windows was nothing like anything before it. Van Halen had 2 distinct successful iterations: DLR and Sammy. anything else didn't amount to anything.

[Song80s]

There is more to this. I think the above is enough to chew on.

 

You know if you are creative. You know what it feels like. Lots of

'commercial fail ' might get connected . Years of it, really.

 

I am adamant about disconnecting your strong creative skill

from the business, or ' instant commercialism ' or the f'g $$$.

[Song80s]

there have been other threads, one just recently.

 

I've thought a lot about this and mostly have not commented because I don't know how to eloquently and succinctly communicate my opinion.

 

Suffice it to say, after initial success, most artists struggle to follow it up under the pressures of delivering a hit under a time constraint.

 

Some recover, others don't. Aerosmith came back as an example. Bands like RUSH were always talented but anything after Power Windows was nothing like anything before it. Van Halen had 2 distinct successful iterations: DLR and Sammy. anything else didn't amount to anything.

 

Thanks for posting, Dan. You are a significant artist.

 

I am not much for looking at many other bands, or their history.

 

Could be just the age I am at or its stubborn attitude. . What happened to Aerosmith , Rush is not relevant enough to my contribution or what I want to offer. The context is

different. Its certainly ok to admire what Rush has done over the decades.

 

I will rave about intensely creative artists, though. I make that distinction.

Bowie is/was incredible. Gino Vanelli' is someone I have the highest regard and respect for.

[J. Dan]

Brother Greg, I don't think we're far apart age wise. I'm 47. Not that it matters, really.

[Song80s]

Brother Greg, I don't think we're far apart age wise. I'm 47. Not that it matters, really.

 

You are right, Dan. Age does not matter, not in the real scheme of things. I turned 66

2 weeks ago. My wife and I share the same b-day ( she's 57, thats a secret) which is a cool coincidence.

 

I think having a decade or 2 of experience with more life stuff can be a plus. Admitted

late bloomer here. I am always in catch up mode one way or another.

 

Creativity is a favorite topic of mine. I am glad you are interested and I notice other brothers have something to offer on similar topics.

[Joe Muscara]

I recently read Steven Pressfield's The War of Art and this subject is one he often discusses. If I get a chance later, I'll try to find and post something coherent about it from him. In the meantime, you can check out some of his stuff and see for yourself.

[Bill H.]

David Bowie actually started out with the intention of fame. He used to dream about being the next Mick Jagger, told his mom that he was going to be a rock star, and instructed his first manager to make him a million like Brian Epstein did for the Beatles.

 

To his great credit, after his initial success as a glam rock star he knew that he had to keep it moving. To me, he was one of the few bright spots in the vast sea of creative mediocrity that characterized the music of the 1970s.

 

 

Just my opinion

[J. Dan]

such a difficult subject. We want to eat yet somehow we're evil if we change our art to eat. UGH! I won't say any more.

[Theo Verelst]

Creativity doesn't enter into it when talking about pop fame in a certain context, which happens to be a big part of the modern "hits'" context, in my opinion. That too isn't the big picture: there's the error that everybody will end up as a lame set of character fields in a big database, and the artificial(/ly) intelligen(t/ce) will make sure all those "characters" will exhibit buying behavior to guise the markets according to Certain Rules.

 

It's not that creativity is growing dreadlocks, accumulating musical instruments and deleting your Twitter account, but it's certainly that for every creative sound, an army of traitors disguised as IT-ers would be ready to take the intellectual property of the result or the software that made that creative sound, and "enter" it into a certain well known world wide conspiracy. It's not slanderous to talk about that, when it is true, and it isn't paranoia if it's true. For those into such thoughts.

 

Creativity with a fresh stave manuscript notebook and an acoustic piano isn't easy, and maybe passe. Is that a dialectic you're looking for ?

 

T

[bfields]

https://medium.com/message/i-know-times-are-changing-f6032d87c97b "Prince had shared the stage with the J. Geils Band in 1981, as part of a legendarily ill-fated opening gig for the Rolling Stones where Prince and his band were pelted with objects by the crowd while being booed offstage. A scarring incident, to be sure, but Prince must certainly have noticed that Geils did not get booed offstage.... Little wonder then that Lets Go Crazy, written just a year later, would incorporate the same staccato organ stabs and driving beat as Freeze Frame (heard quite clearly in the full-length version of Lets Go Crazy), substituting Princes trademark Linn drums for the more conventional sounds of the Geils song, and replacing the freeze frame! shout with a similarly percussive oh no, lets go! refrain."

 

I'd argue that "Let's Go Crazy" is a successful creative work.

 

I don't know if that story of its creation is right. But I suspect that some people find their creativity is fed by constraints; and, for them, "how can I make this song really popular" can be an intriguing puzzle.

[bfields]

By the way, looks like the OP's original text is from https://medium.com/s/story/to-reach-an-audience-of-million-create-for-an-audience-of-one-4e873b4ac998 ? We shouldn't cut and paste entire articles without attribution. It would be best to quote just an excerpt and link for the whole article.

[GRollins]

My take:

 

As an author (currently on sabbatical due to kids--nothing kills a good writing session faster than a kid bustin' in with a bleeding finger, wanting a Band Aid), I started writing because I didn't have enough money to buy books and none of my favorite authors had anything new out at that moment anyway. Out of desperation I decided that I'd write something for myself. In the process, I discovered that I liked writing and kept at it. There's a saying that anyone can be a published author--all they have to do is write a million words as practice. I figure I got lucky. I only had to write about 100k before my first story got accepted.

 

I don't write for other people. I--selfishly, I suppose--try to write stories that I think I might like if I was the reader. The irony is that there's no point in me reading the silly things, because I already know how they end...

 

I am approaching music in the same way. I'm writing music that pleases me. Music differs from stories in that it doesn't matter if you know how the song ends--if it's a good song, you want to hear it again. I can't count how many times I've heard Stairway To Heaven or Kashmir, but I still like to hear them. My music pleases me on some level; whether it will please others has yet to be tested, but I've begun recording so that question may soon have an answer.

 

In the final analysis, popularity comes down to whether your inner self's preferences match the zeitgeist of the moment (and whether you have any ability in your chosen field--if my music is judged by my skills on keys, I'm doomed).

 

I was fortunate with stories. Music...? We'll see.

 

Grey

[Adan]

Your thesis would tend to reinforce a concern that living in the age of total connectivity and instant feedback may work at cross purposes with creativity. The artist has to find the discipline to insulate themselves from constant self-exposure and feedback. How many can or will?

[BluesKeys]

You are definitely in to something here Greg!!! We as musicians are so wrapped up in pleasing people (it is so nice when folk thank you for a great show) that we forget that if we enjoy what we are doing other folks will enjoy it to!

I would also speak to follow up albums or songs by artist who have a successful album/CD. Often we have years of writing and when we put all the best stuff on a CD then it takes years to fill another CD with the same quality. I find only about 1/4 of my original tunes get my own love over time. Each song may have it's moment but few have a lasting quality.

[Song80s]

By the way, looks like the OP's original text is from https://medium.com/s/story/to-reach-an-audience-of-million-create-for-an-audience-of-one-4e873b4ac998 ? We shouldn't cut and paste entire articles without attribution. It would be best to quote just an excerpt and link for the whole article.

By the way, looks like the OP's original text is from https://medium.com/s/story/to-reach-an-audience-of-million-create-for-an-audience-of-one-4e873b4ac998 ? We shouldn't cut and paste entire articles without attribution. It would be best to quote just an excerpt and link for the whole article.

 

Good point. I am not the author. The 8 minute article is by Srinivas Rao.

Medium is a paid for blog.

 

I should have been 'correct or fair about source. Tried to allude there is more to it.

 

Medium is a blog where I pay a fee. I haven't been constantly successful with getting the paid links to work or be accessible. Plus I wanted to pick and choose and hit the high points . Given this I copied in the first few paragraphs.

 

Thanks for reminding me. I will be clear on source for future topics.

[Song80s]

My take:

 

As an author (currently on sabbatical due to kids--nothing kills a good writing session faster than a kid bustin' in with a bleeding finger, wanting a Band Aid), I started writing because I didn't have enough money to buy books and none of my favorite authors had anything new out at that moment anyway. Out of desperation I decided that I'd write something for myself. In the process, I discovered that I liked writing and kept at it. There's a saying that anyone can be a published author--all they have to do is write a million words as practice. I figure I got lucky. I only had to write about 100k before my first story got accepted.

 

I don't write for other people. I--selfishly, I suppose--try to write stories that I think I might like if I was the reader. The irony is that there's no point in me reading the silly things, because I already know how they end...

 

I am approaching music in the same way. I'm writing music that pleases me. Music differs from stories in that it doesn't matter if you know how the song ends--if it's a good song, you want to hear it again. I can't count how many times I've heard Stairway To Heaven or Kashmir, but I still like to hear them. My music pleases me on some level; whether it will please others has yet to be tested, but I've begun recording so that question may soon have an answer.

 

In the final analysis, popularity comes down to whether your inner self's preferences match the zeitgeist of the moment (and whether you have any ability in your chosen field--if my music is judged by my skills on keys, I'm doomed).

 

I was fortunate with stories. Music...? We'll see.

 

Grey

 

You are on the right track. You already have confidence that you are creative. And I am adamant of playing to your 'inner audience'. You are fan#1.

 

To control distractions and have time and space and good conditions is essential. Once the elements are managed its a matter of being productive.

 

You make another direct hit that it takes months and years and volume(to sharpen skills) to eventually have that stand out product.

[GRollins]

A curious observation: I am better able to tolerate interruptions when I'm writing music than when I'm writing stories. When I'm writing stories, I frequently have dialog and events mapped out far in advance in my head and I'm constantly trying to juggle all the parameters and keep it all straight. In music, I'm rarely more than a measure or two (i.e. just a few seconds duration) ahead of my current position, so it's easier to remember things. Note that I said easier (comparative) rather than easy (absolute). I still get peeved if someone breaks my train of thought...just not as badly.

 

Grey

[Legatoboy]

So true, I was a more successful musician at 9 than I was at 19 for sure purely in musical terms, even with all the HS Dance gigs and Beatles Medleys I (we) played. . . gotta know what you want..and where your at....were all in the game for different reasons.. and it changes with time I have found.

[Song80s]

A curious observation: I am better able to tolerate interruptions when I'm writing music than when I'm writing stories. When I'm writing stories, I frequently have dialog and events mapped out far in advance in my head and I'm constantly trying to juggle all the parameters and keep it all straight. In music, I'm rarely more than a measure or two (i.e. just a few seconds duration) ahead of my current position, so it's easier to remember things. Note that I said easier (comparative) rather than easy (absolute). I still get peeved if someone breaks my train of thought...just not as badly.

 

Grey

 

No problem with that approach. A creative person can choose their time and process.

And the venue. Whatever your muse tells you.

 

My statement about control of environment was to help creative flow. I find flow to be satisfying and productive. The 'flow event' could be drafting rough strong structure.

Or it could be a 24 bar intro.

 

After 3 hours of this, I typically pull away from my Kronos. But the brain is still spinning, thrashing ideas constantly. So when I return the next morning, I have visualized what the next tasks are.

 

FYI, I don't write tab or notation. Kronos SEQ is my best friend.

[synthizen2]

... in the vast sea of creative mediocrity that characterized the music of the latter half of the 1970s.

 

Corrected.

 

If I'm not mistaken, there was a 7 to 8 year gap between Bowie's initial ambitions and his success. Including 3 or 4 albums, and some singles - from 1964 to 1971. And many "image" changes, even back then... from Teen BritPopster ("David Bowie" 1967) to Pseudo-Psychedelia ("Space Oddity" 1969) to Hippie-Guru Singer/Songwriter ("Hunky Dory" 1971), and then finally to Glam Rock ("Ziggy Stardust" 1972).

 

From the very beginning, Bowie was always putting his finger in the wind for the latest trends. Doesn't mean he ain't creative - not by a long shot - because he applied his own visions to current running trends, and a lot of the time BEAT the competition at the game.

 

There was this series on HBO a couple years ago called "Vinyl" which was co-written by Mick Jagger, and featured his son in an acting role. There was one scene where the obvious "David Bowie" character (not by name) was talking to a record exec who witnessed a rehearsal of his new Ziggy Stardust stage show, and the exec was like, "What's this stuff? Man, you really spoke the truth and touched a nerve with that Hunky Dory album, but what's with all this glitz and glam stuff now?"... The "Bowie" character just gives a blank stare to the record exec and gets on with his rehearsal. Funny stuff. It was like, "Hey record exec, don't you want to make money too?"

 

[David Emm]

Fame is often just another bloody module you have to manage while trying to keep a grip on your creativity. If you suddenly become Famous, good luck, because half the crowd will start hating you the first time you step outside your inital splash of ideas. It takes a rare, Bowie-quality form of fortitude to dismiss the clatter and embrace the other half of the crowd. You know, the ones who never yell "Free Bird!!" at a show.

[Song80s]

Fame is often just another bloody module you have to manage while trying to keep a grip on your creativity. If you suddenly become Famous, good luck, because half the crowd will start hating you the first time you step outside your inital splash of ideas. It takes a rare, Bowie-quality form of fortitude to dismiss the clatter and embrace the other half of the crowd. You know, the ones who never yell "Free Bird!!" at a show.

 

I think you make a good point. While it must be flattering to get some 'fame ' ( a Bowie song) it could have a downside.

 

Ok to call me crazy for saying this.

 

What if my muse or creativity is bothered by the additional demand and responsibility ?

 

A part of my creativity is fueled by my aggravation of lack of recognition locally.

For example, I also get the occasional snotty message on Facebook when I post

my latest original on local FB neighborhood groups.

 

In a way, I don't mind negative feedback. Plus there is no way I can please everyone

or convince local country music lovers (for example) that electic light jazz is worth their time.

 

Angst and emotion plays an important role in creativity. Its part of the package and I

channel frustration into the music.

 

[Bill H.]

Medium is a blog where I pay a fee.

 

 

Based on this one blog, I'm not sure I'd be paying for this kind of stuff. To quote Ryan Reynolds it's just lazy writing taking David Bowie at his word - when in fact he was highly ambitious, and acutely aware of his place in the rock pantheon.

 

 

I personally attended Bowie's Station to Station concert in Seattle. There was no mistake about it. He was putting on a show.

 

 

There are much better examples. Kurt Cobain comes immediately to mind.

 

 

 

[Legatoboy]

When the almost 80 year teacher I study with gets together with his Trio or buddies to record, rehearse, perform or hang ..there are always jokes flying around the room about 'stars' . . .They are Be-bop musicians in 2018...they're allowed to laugh about anything especially at that age but fame and stardom is especially rife....I think they laughed just as hard 30 years ago when I met them . . .for that group of NYC musicians and age group in the NY underground, selling out was a major issue, especially if you had stuff going on in your music....the only time they would come out for a non be-bop gig was for big $ per gig ($400-$500). But for the older guys, never ever Rock and Roll heaven forbid...but he knows I (we) have to be part of our own generation (53-69 year olds). . . we'd be lying if we said we didn't live through the 60's and 70's now wouldn't we ... They defiantly feel fame is a no-good-nick in terms of your art. Dedicated to the tradition...

 

[Song80s]

Medium is a blog where I pay a fee.

 

Based on this one blog, I'm not sure I'd be paying for this kind of stuff. To quote Ryan Reynolds it's just lazy writing taking David Bowie at his word - when in fact he was highly ambitious, and acutely aware of his place in the rock pantheon.

 

I personally attended Bowie's Station to Station concert in Seattle. There was no mistake about it. He was putting on a show.

 

 

There are much better examples. Kurt Cobain comes immediately to mind.

 

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Bowie 's output is far more interesting than Cobain.

 

I think the 70's, the entire decade was a great one for music creativity.

 

I pay a small monthly fee for medium.org because the authors and content are at a good level. And by doing so, I support other creative writers . I consider it my tribe.

 

I think that covers it !

[Theo Verelst]

Agreed on the 70s for the great creativity. I also love the music, usually, even though maybe it tried to do too much, which is also cute and certainly interesting.

 

As the threats that true creativity seems to attract: there are various levels of aggregations that deserve to be considered as creative grace under pressure. Since music became less creative (IMHO at least) the freedom for creativity has suffered at the high fame levels. The show going on as big brother wants idols and such makes people scrutinize creative artists not helping them along with their desire to hop the hip. At lower levels in the creative hierarchy, if we agree there is one, betrayal and wrong people management appear to be important. There's not much a single person can do against the record industry, as a simple example. Who would deserve a fat contract, or why do certain people get promoted to receive loads of media attention and others get pushed into poverty by having only a chance to squander their music on essentially non-paying streaming services?

 

TV

[zeronyne]

Bowie not only believed thathe embodied what it means.

The ultimate paradox of creative work is that what you create for an audience of one is much more likely to reach an audience of millions.

 

 

It's an admirable thought, but a single anecdote does not support creating for an audience of one to most effectively reach an audience of millions.

 

Instead of squishy relativism, and if you really want to have a meaningful discussion about this, set some parameters. What does "fame" mean in quantifiable terms? And what constitutes "famous". Then you can assess how many people are actually "famous" within a certain time period by that definition.

 

THEN, you can examine the creative process of these people and assess whether they were just noodling around for self-satisfaction or whether they had monetary or other motivations to become famous. The statement "The ultimate paradox of creative work is that what you create for an audience of one is much more likely to reach an audience of millions." may have been true for the English fella who unfortunately ended up with two different colored eyes, but he could be the exception that proves the opposite.

 

If you don't define your variables you and everyone else (including me) are just spouting unsubstantiated opinions.

[Theo Verelst]

...

_____________________________

"For instance" is not proof.

 

Actually, it is, in many cases, when valid, the most horrible type of proof, namely the crux of most scientific research if it must be, the *counter*-proof. So if your theorem is "in y=x^2, there is no value for x where y is negative or zero", I could create a counter example by filling in x=0, and that would definitively prove your theorem is wrong.

 

Sorry about that, carry on..