On the other hand, it’s a role that I fulfill out of raw nescessity, and it’s driving me completely f***ing insane. So I’d agree, although there’s a lot of polymath hybrids out there, most of us are not enjoying it.

Of course, that will change over time. I’m a lot more comfortable with this juggling act than I was even a month ago. Perhaps by the end of 2008 it will be natural as breathing.

I know dozens of people who act in those roles simultaneously. I know very few who are those types simultaneously. Does that make sense?

Coming from both a business & music background I still found it quite refreshing to see a business marketing model applied to the music industry, as it’s something that a lot of people seem to have a vague idea of, but don’t really know what the stages even are.

Also, I’d strongly disagree with the comment that the artist/manager/promoter is rare… There are absolutely thousands upon thousands of them these days due to the ease of managing a good portion of most of the necessary tasks online. Finding one good enough to get somewhere though – now that’s the rare part. A good, knowledgable team is still almost certainly going to be the most beneficial.

Also – it is *certainly* the case that this quality that you equate with ‘commerce’ applies to classical/jazz &c just as it does to pop. Could ‘commerce’ be boiled down to ‘pragmatism’ – or a willingness to work within set parameters? That is, taking away the monetary/economic implications of ‘commerce’.

I’m thinking at the moment of JS Bach, whose Chorale settings so reliably contain brilliant, inspired harmonic writing. The kind of stuff that would have been breath-taking at the time. And every single one is a setting of a simple, pre-ordained melody. And uses a simple four-part vocal texture.

Or Shakespeare – who arguably never wrote a plot in his life – but took existing stories and fused them into fantastic new hybrids.

(Oh, yeh, and he had quite a way with words, too.)

So much great art, it seems to me, is about accepting – then kicking off from – limitations, restrictions and ‘rules’. Absolute, unfettered creativity doesn’t, in practice, seem to be anywhere near as rich in its output.

That may’ve veered slightly off-topic. But your post (and subsequent comments) made me think about the fact that art seems to thrive when its creators are constrained or challenged by rules or circumstances.

Rock and roll is for skull tattoos with snakes coming out the eyes, not delicate faux tribal stuff.

A blog about feng shui and tampons, yes. Music, no.

Get ye to a laser surgeon immediately.

I’d be careful of using Hollywood as a model for anything these days, but again, I see where you’re coming from.

The writer who gives bad meetings may be a great writer, but the tension experienced in those meetings generally comes not from an under-appreciation of the artistic worth of the writing, but from a misunderstanding of the ecology and how the parts fit together. Sometimes that misunderstanding’s an intentional strategy in terms of positioning oneself in relation to a finished creative product, but mostly it happens when studio execs don’t understand narrative – only numbers. Or when writers believe that to be faithful to the novel, it has to be a four and a half hour film – which misunderstands the medium and the business of cinema.

Everyone needs to be pulling for their corner, and the writer who gives ‘good meetings’ is probably folding far too quickly and not invested enough in the whole thing. When these defenses-of-position and debates are in the interests of a better overall media product, then it’s totally worthwhile – but these sorts of meetings can only take place between people with different things at stake, and different understandings of what’s important – but a common goal.

Likewise, the writer who will not listen to another viewpoint, but just repeats their position and defends every word of the text to the death is probably not in alignment with the overall project and should probably walk away.

The best overall media products tend to come when those different parts of the ecology (the six steps, if you like) all work together toward a common, or at least compatible goal. That doesn’t mean that the art has to ‘win’ over the commerce or vice-versa. It means there needs to be compatible vision.

This is why I use the Sopranos as an example of a successful media product. It does everything well, apparently to everyone’s satisfaction. It wasn’t the case that the writers ‘won’ over the producers, or that there was a single visionary who took control of the whole process. It’s just all good and it all works. I bet not everything was smooth sailing, but everyone was at least on board.

It’s a process a friend of mine once called anagonality, and I absolutely love the idea of it. It comes from the term agon from ancient Greek drama, which was the conflict around which the whole thing turns — where heroes win and villains die.

But the idea of an-agon (literally ‘not-conflict’) is the struggle through which mutual advantage is gained.

Teo Macero and Miles Davis are bickering at each other through the studio glass. Macero’s not getting the performance he wants out of Miles and the trumpeter is completely fed up. Macero gets out of his producer’s chair, walks past the other musicians into the studio, and starts a fist fight with Miles. They fight for several minutes and both men are getting pretty worked up. Miles Davis is clearly furious and ready to beat the living crap out of Macero.

“Okay – wait!” shouts Macero. “Now play it.”

He runs back into the control room and gets the take he was after – only better than he could have possibly imagined.

It’s a good story that may or may not be true.

At any rate, it’s exciting to be engaged in this little bit of anagonality with you here. This is exactly what I was hoping for – smart people challenging, disputing and engaging with the stuff I’m writing so that I can try and defend my corner, but come to a better understanding of the whole thing, and through the process, end up with a better media product here than otherwise would have been possible if I’d just agreed with you, or refused to listen.

Anyway… the artist/promoter/businessperson all-in-one deal is a rare find. I’ve met three in my life. Everyone else can and should find people they trust to complement their own skills and shortcomings. Assembling a great team, working toward a common project aim (even when there’s this productive tension), and letting people do what they’re good at is pretty much the key.

To be business savvy doesn’t mean to be soulless, but it might mean being intelligent and experienced. Just as being an artist does not mean you must be shrouded in melodrama.

Life may appear to be driven by the majority but in fact that majority is led by individuals. These individuals conceive and even sometimes execute great ideas that change the majority perception (often over time).

I guess what I am saying is that with the right tools and experience people can and will do all kinds of “impossible” things.

I’m interested to see how that conceptualization takes place, Andrew. I’m acting on the premise that “if a writer gives good meeting, they’re probably a crappy writer”, if you’ll excuse the Hollywood metaphoe which emphasizes the fundamental differences between those on the biz end of things and those on th Art end. Of course there’ll be some cross-over, but it’ll take some convincing for me to believe that both can be entirely embodied in a single artist/business person. The gauntlet has been thrown! ;)