Hmm, a few aspects coming up for me... Not really coherent yet, so forgive the side-tracks.
First, I really expected you to end this with "things made with attention earn the attention of others" :P Which you kinda did!
But it's a more complex dynamics, I think - especially in our times of so much slop and everything trying to steal your attention, when the mainstream entertainment is basically treating the audiences like idiots. You see it especially within film, where scripts are written assuming the viewer scrolls social media on their phone while watching, so everything needs to be explained, multiple times over. And the audiences get used to the fact that nobody expects them to make a slightest of efforts. They also feel they aren't wasting their time (doing two things at one). But they are - ultimately paying attention to nothing and feeding the soul with "fast food". This kinda goes along with your point about "earning it" - make your thing nutritious. But then, what about audiences that got convinced they hate the bitter taste of salad, being fed with sugar all the time?
When I make things with attention, I kinda expect the audience to "earn it" by giving their *full* attention - and time - to it. I basically set the same standards for them as I do for me, and I won't make it any easier for them because we live in times of attention-crisis. I expect them to make an effort. I feel like this *is* me earning their attention. And it can often be disappointing.
In general, what you often see is this weird dynamics between you being you in your art/music (always the best thing to do, if done honestly), and trying to "earn" the attention of others by fulfilling certain expectations (not necessarily doing nutritious stuff). But if you truly do your best, and stay true to your expression in that, don't you have the right to expect others to also do their best? It's like with that example of conversation: both need to pay attention for it to work. Sure, you stay on the smalltalk level, but are we really here in our limited time (and attention) to stay on the surface?
I had to think about Umberto Eco, who starts "The Name of the Rose" with supremely boring, long historical essay (at least that's how I remember it from some 20 years ago). Whoever can get past that earned the right to enjoy the actual book. I understand it. I probably wouldn't do it, but I understand. You don't try to make everything accessible but set a certain bar for the audience instead. Does this count as earning the attention of others?
My strategy, I think, is making things with attention but also assuming that my audience has the capacity to give back. It's a two-way street.
Hopefully I didn't waste your time by making you read this slightly incoherent rumination on attention. ;)
As always, a detailed and thoughtful reply! I had to read it through with my notebook out and make notes to respond in kind haha.
Yeah, I definitely agree with one of your points here. There’s a real risk with this message that it’s interpreted to mean: Be louder, have faster cuts, grab people’s attention in 2 secs, be outrageous, etc. We’ve heard that message on the internet a lot, e.g. “Your content needs to be exactly like this, loud, fast, in your face, etc” and it sucks. To your point, it’s like dousing stuff with sugar.
That’s not what “earning it” means to me. All that stuff seems more like tricking people to me. In fact, I feel like if you do that stuff, then your responsibility to earn their attention beyond the algo-hacking stuff is even higher. Like, if you start with an attention-grabbing trick in a video, then you better have a super-in-depth, insightful, entertaining video following it. Otherwise, you’re just wasting everyone’s time.
That’s what made Motown so great in fact. Yes, Gordy made everyone have a hook right up front — but then they backed it up too with amazing performances, the best musicians, fantastic songs, wonderful harmonies. Like the intros are great, but the songs are even better. They earn your attention at every stage, and that’s really intentional.
I feel like “earning it” can mean fulfilling someone’s expectations, like giving them a big satisfying payoff they’ve been waiting for, but it can also mean disrupting their expectations. That’s one way to earn someone’s time and focus — by surprising them. By upending the status quo. By opening up their perspective. By teaching them something about themselves. etc.
So for me, this is probably more of a push toward originality and perspective than anything else. I often like artists who require a bit of work on the part of the audience to get into their work — but only if there’s substance and depth there once you do that work (i.e. you’re not taking that work for granted). I go to a lot of noise shows where the artist is certainly demanding effort from the audience to get through a lot of harsh sounds. The difference between the ones who do it well and the ones who don’t for me is: Are they only offering harsh sounds, is that all it is, a shock experience, or does it go somewhere else, somewhere unexpected or emotional or narratively interesting or moving or insightful? Have they put thought and care into what this experience will be like for me?
Final thing: I think this is mostly about having a healthy mindset when making music. If I’m making music with the expectation that an audience should listen to me, that I’m entitled to their attention, then I think I’m setting myself up for unhappiness, I think I’m foregrounding my ego in a way that is ultimately detrimental. If, on the other hand, I’m making music and thinking about how I’m going to channel my ideas and my voice into something that reaches and moves others, that serves them somehow, then I think it’s both more realistic about the reality of the situation and a more expansive and satisfying place to be, since I’m focusing on what’s in my control, namely the work and attention I put into it.
Yeah, I am totally aware you don't mean "earning" like that - it just had to come up for me if we talk about attention. :) And I totally agree that the more you lure in, the more responsibility you have for what you actually offer your audiences.
And yeah, I also never *expect* people to listen to me and my stuff. :) What I was trying to say above is that when they *choose* to listen - then I "expect" them to be listening fully. Maybe it's still a misleading/wrong term... I "invite" them? I think - at least when it comes to my own expression - things I do often don't work if the audience is not willing to *give time* to them. So I am looking for ways I can communicate with others through my expression, but this communication needs two sides to work. It's not about being unapproachable, although I can see how it sometimes looks that way. It's about trying to take my audiences on a journey through a path they would otherwise not find. But they often need to pay attention in order for that to happen, if that makes sense. :)
It's funny we say "pay" attention - like paying entrance at the door to a secret world... I can think of the most fantastic ways to get people in and show them a beautiful mountain, but if their attention is in their phones, or elsewhere, nothing will happen. I can only point to the entrance.
*"I feel like “earning it” can mean fulfilling someone’s expectations, like giving them a big satisfying payoff they’ve been waiting for, but it can also mean disrupting their expectations. That’s one way to earn someone’s time and focus — by surprising them. By upending the status quo. By opening up their perspective. By teaching them something about themselves. etc."*
Yes, absolutely. At the same time as I feel it’s good to earn someone’s attention and not take it for granted, you have to make your music assuming they will give it to you. The only counter example I can think of is maybe Brian Eno’s whole music for airports thing where he wanted it to fade into the background, but that feels more like a conceptual art piece sometimes.
Dude this rules. I especially love the point about how as artists, we actually are accountable for conveying the gift of our audience’s attention *responsibly* - like being bequeathed it is a type of honor, something that merits stewardship.
Hmm, a few aspects coming up for me... Not really coherent yet, so forgive the side-tracks.
First, I really expected you to end this with "things made with attention earn the attention of others" :P Which you kinda did!
But it's a more complex dynamics, I think - especially in our times of so much slop and everything trying to steal your attention, when the mainstream entertainment is basically treating the audiences like idiots. You see it especially within film, where scripts are written assuming the viewer scrolls social media on their phone while watching, so everything needs to be explained, multiple times over. And the audiences get used to the fact that nobody expects them to make a slightest of efforts. They also feel they aren't wasting their time (doing two things at one). But they are - ultimately paying attention to nothing and feeding the soul with "fast food". This kinda goes along with your point about "earning it" - make your thing nutritious. But then, what about audiences that got convinced they hate the bitter taste of salad, being fed with sugar all the time?
When I make things with attention, I kinda expect the audience to "earn it" by giving their *full* attention - and time - to it. I basically set the same standards for them as I do for me, and I won't make it any easier for them because we live in times of attention-crisis. I expect them to make an effort. I feel like this *is* me earning their attention. And it can often be disappointing.
In general, what you often see is this weird dynamics between you being you in your art/music (always the best thing to do, if done honestly), and trying to "earn" the attention of others by fulfilling certain expectations (not necessarily doing nutritious stuff). But if you truly do your best, and stay true to your expression in that, don't you have the right to expect others to also do their best? It's like with that example of conversation: both need to pay attention for it to work. Sure, you stay on the smalltalk level, but are we really here in our limited time (and attention) to stay on the surface?
I had to think about Umberto Eco, who starts "The Name of the Rose" with supremely boring, long historical essay (at least that's how I remember it from some 20 years ago). Whoever can get past that earned the right to enjoy the actual book. I understand it. I probably wouldn't do it, but I understand. You don't try to make everything accessible but set a certain bar for the audience instead. Does this count as earning the attention of others?
My strategy, I think, is making things with attention but also assuming that my audience has the capacity to give back. It's a two-way street.
Hopefully I didn't waste your time by making you read this slightly incoherent rumination on attention. ;)
As always, a detailed and thoughtful reply! I had to read it through with my notebook out and make notes to respond in kind haha.
Yeah, I definitely agree with one of your points here. There’s a real risk with this message that it’s interpreted to mean: Be louder, have faster cuts, grab people’s attention in 2 secs, be outrageous, etc. We’ve heard that message on the internet a lot, e.g. “Your content needs to be exactly like this, loud, fast, in your face, etc” and it sucks. To your point, it’s like dousing stuff with sugar.
That’s not what “earning it” means to me. All that stuff seems more like tricking people to me. In fact, I feel like if you do that stuff, then your responsibility to earn their attention beyond the algo-hacking stuff is even higher. Like, if you start with an attention-grabbing trick in a video, then you better have a super-in-depth, insightful, entertaining video following it. Otherwise, you’re just wasting everyone’s time.
That’s what made Motown so great in fact. Yes, Gordy made everyone have a hook right up front — but then they backed it up too with amazing performances, the best musicians, fantastic songs, wonderful harmonies. Like the intros are great, but the songs are even better. They earn your attention at every stage, and that’s really intentional.
I feel like “earning it” can mean fulfilling someone’s expectations, like giving them a big satisfying payoff they’ve been waiting for, but it can also mean disrupting their expectations. That’s one way to earn someone’s time and focus — by surprising them. By upending the status quo. By opening up their perspective. By teaching them something about themselves. etc.
So for me, this is probably more of a push toward originality and perspective than anything else. I often like artists who require a bit of work on the part of the audience to get into their work — but only if there’s substance and depth there once you do that work (i.e. you’re not taking that work for granted). I go to a lot of noise shows where the artist is certainly demanding effort from the audience to get through a lot of harsh sounds. The difference between the ones who do it well and the ones who don’t for me is: Are they only offering harsh sounds, is that all it is, a shock experience, or does it go somewhere else, somewhere unexpected or emotional or narratively interesting or moving or insightful? Have they put thought and care into what this experience will be like for me?
Final thing: I think this is mostly about having a healthy mindset when making music. If I’m making music with the expectation that an audience should listen to me, that I’m entitled to their attention, then I think I’m setting myself up for unhappiness, I think I’m foregrounding my ego in a way that is ultimately detrimental. If, on the other hand, I’m making music and thinking about how I’m going to channel my ideas and my voice into something that reaches and moves others, that serves them somehow, then I think it’s both more realistic about the reality of the situation and a more expansive and satisfying place to be, since I’m focusing on what’s in my control, namely the work and attention I put into it.
Does any of that resonate with you?
Yeah, I am totally aware you don't mean "earning" like that - it just had to come up for me if we talk about attention. :) And I totally agree that the more you lure in, the more responsibility you have for what you actually offer your audiences.
And yeah, I also never *expect* people to listen to me and my stuff. :) What I was trying to say above is that when they *choose* to listen - then I "expect" them to be listening fully. Maybe it's still a misleading/wrong term... I "invite" them? I think - at least when it comes to my own expression - things I do often don't work if the audience is not willing to *give time* to them. So I am looking for ways I can communicate with others through my expression, but this communication needs two sides to work. It's not about being unapproachable, although I can see how it sometimes looks that way. It's about trying to take my audiences on a journey through a path they would otherwise not find. But they often need to pay attention in order for that to happen, if that makes sense. :)
It's funny we say "pay" attention - like paying entrance at the door to a secret world... I can think of the most fantastic ways to get people in and show them a beautiful mountain, but if their attention is in their phones, or elsewhere, nothing will happen. I can only point to the entrance.
*"I feel like “earning it” can mean fulfilling someone’s expectations, like giving them a big satisfying payoff they’ve been waiting for, but it can also mean disrupting their expectations. That’s one way to earn someone’s time and focus — by surprising them. By upending the status quo. By opening up their perspective. By teaching them something about themselves. etc."*
Amen to that!
Yes, absolutely. At the same time as I feel it’s good to earn someone’s attention and not take it for granted, you have to make your music assuming they will give it to you. The only counter example I can think of is maybe Brian Eno’s whole music for airports thing where he wanted it to fade into the background, but that feels more like a conceptual art piece sometimes.
Okay, Substack markup on PC doesn't seem to work, so you have to imagine my italic :P
Dude this rules. I especially love the point about how as artists, we actually are accountable for conveying the gift of our audience’s attention *responsibly* - like being bequeathed it is a type of honor, something that merits stewardship.
thanks Zac! Thanks for reading!