Feb 6, 2009
It’s curious that obscurity doesn’t increase an author’s value like it does a musician’s.
Many people enjoy music more if it’s not mainstream, but it doesn’t seem this way as much with books. I wonder why.
* * * * *
© 2012 Abuyo. All rights reserved.
because most everyone enjoys music but not everyone enjoys reading.
No, but we do tend to enjoy other forms then books. Take blogs, for instance. Many very good yet obscure writers have found audience online when the podium was denied them before.
It’s so much easier to find obscure music that you enjoy than it is obscure books. You can usually tell within a few chords whether or not you’re going to like the sound of a song/band. You may not know until you’ve read a few chapters if you like the book/author. Depending on how slow of a reader you are, that might be a while (for me it is). It seems like an issue of patience for me.
Mmm…good question. It’s not a bad gig, though, being an obscure author.
I would suggest that the premise here is incorrect. Or, that it is true as worded, but not true as implied. “Many” people enjoy non-mainstream music. But not “most” or even “a majority”.
There is more fringe music than there is fringe literature, perhaps, due to the simple fact that it is less expensive to establish a recording company than it is to set up a pressing house, and thus more independent labels producing more fringe music than fringe literature. But there is very little evidence to support the idea that anything other than a small handful of the population are supporting these labels.
There is more fringe music than fringe literature, but then, there is also more fringe art than fringe literature which most of us will almost never intersect with and yet exists in abundance.
I think this is a perception issue, not an actual numbers issue.
I find the obscure musician philosophy nauseating.
I have friends who are crazy about a band as long as nobody’s heard of them. Then they get a wider release (sometimes a wider release of a formerly obscure *masterpiece*) and they are no longer fans.
It’s Hipsterism… although I’m guilty of it at times too.
ABM doesn’t just mean Automatic Banking Machine, it also means “anything but mainstream,” and I’m willing to bet that this attitude is almost equally present among bibliophiles as it is among audiophiles.
My guess would be your statement is an overgeneralization.
I noticed this recently as well. My brother-in-law gave me a book to read that some guy in Colorado self-published, and self-distributes. So far, I have not read a word.
If someone gives me a CD of a band on a major label, I usually let it collect dust as well.
When it comes to books, I am suspicious of those who “can’t” get major production/distribution, but with music, I praise those who “won’t”, or who refuse to.
Yep. I am a hypocrite.
Michael, isn’t that a slightly separate topic?
Separate topics are welcome.
1. Maybe there are just more good obscure musicians out there than there are good obscure writers. (Being both myself.)
2. It’s much easier to get hold of obscure music than obscure books. Click.
3. Really awful music is way more fun than a really awful book.
hmm…..I got nothin’. But, I think you’re right. And, I think Zach is right–at least for me.
It takes a lot less time and effort to appraise obscure music than it does obscure books.
I agree with Barry.
Many people don’t have the attention span necessary to check out a lot of obscure books – but they can spend a few minutes listening to some songs and tell if they like it or not.
I think that you need to work in a bookstore before you commit to that opinion. The culture of book-buying is a lot like the “old” culture of the used record store where the real bibliophiles — the hard-core readers who, frankly, cannot do anything else but read — are bent on finding the next thing.
And the more obscure and weird, the better. Personally, I think that is actually a problem in Christian publishing.
Perhaps people are more willing to invest the time it takes to hear a song more than the time it takes to read a book…. there is less of a risk with music, it is less of a commitment
Michael K.: LOL! That was great. Yeah, once the band or author makes it big–their “obscure groupies” act like they’ve been betrayed. Like the band/author “sold out.” Ha.
Speaking of obscure… have any of you heard about The Most Unwanted Song? Based on results from a poll, the most despised musical elements were crammed into one very obscure 25 minute song.
Listen: http://ubu.artmob.ca/sound/komar_melamid/KomarMelamid_The-Most-UnwantedSong.mp3
Read: http://www.diabooks.org/diabooks/item.m?itemID=483
I am a little odd, but I read Project Gutenberg, so I find it much easier to find obscure authors. If I happen to see a title that intrigues me, I read for a few pages and then decided whether I want to continue or not. And some of my most favorite books are obscure, little known ones.
I think it all depends on how much energy you are feeling at the time and what it is you are trying to satisfy in your life at that moment.
i can’t say this for sure, but i’d suggest that if and when somebody “enjoys” a work of art when it’s more obscure, we’re really talking at least in part about the coolness factor. either how others perceive you, or how you perceive yourself.
when i like “obscure” music, it doesn’t mean i like music that literally no one has heard of. that would be lame. it has to be acclaimed by SOMEBODY (just not accepted by EVERYBODY) or it’s not cool.
the rules for books are just a little different: it’s enjoyable to read obscure authors, OR authors that everybody’s heard of but nobody’s actually read. either way, you still wouldn’t read a REALLY obscure book – unless, of course, you have so much coolness currency already that whatever you like, people will believe it’s good. personally, i’m probably not that cool. :]
I disagree about the idea that books are more attractive the more mainstream they are, especially when you consider modern books. So many of the books written today are geared towards mass appeal rather than intellectual simulation. I’d much rather read a thought provoking, obscure book than base my reading list on the NYT bestseller list any day. Granted, I have read some of the books on the NYT list, but it was not because of their previous or current status on the list, rather for the subject matter (ex. America Alone by Mark Stein, Born Again by Chuck Colson).
For me, in both music and reading, the key is the content itself, not its popularity.
In a side point of irony, the Bible is the bestselling book ever, but most bibles collect dust on the shelf…
I think if you take into account authors like Grisham, King, and other perennial best sellers you get the same thing.
If you’re on the NYT best seller list or Oprah’s book club there is a certain segment of the population who won’t read you.
Same segment of the population (if they’re music listners) who won’t listen to a mainstream band.
I think that in our world of mass produced culture, where the vast majority of clothes are made by a few companies, the radios only play a few hundred bands, and theaters play the same few dozen movies per year,a lot of people want to partake in art that makes them a feel a little less like a mass produced person.
They turn to music to find something to distinguish themselves. Music takes little time or effort to procure and listen to. You can listen to a few hundred indie songs in a day.
Books on the other hand take more effort and time. It takes me a year to read 100 books.
I suspect the reason that their is a wider market for indie music than indie books is that music is much easier.
It’s because music is more ephemeral, more emotional, more soulful.
Books are more concrete, literal, and stationary.
I wonder if part of it is that we are not in as much danger of getting inundated with the work of mainstream authors as we are with mainstream musicians. After all, you won’t be hearing that NYT bestseller book read to you over the grocery store speakers… and in TV commercials… and on 3 out of every 4 radio stations… and in the elevator… etc.
I wish there was as clear a path to connect with your audience in books as there is in music.
As an obscure author, who is looking for a publisher at present, I see indie musicians doing well, but not many indie writers. But it is easier now, with the internet, to connect to your audience (see Abraham Piper).
It’s a stigma for writers to go the indie route (and it’s mostly well-deserved…horrible self-published stuff abounds) but few find fault with indie musicians.
Good topic, as usual.
Maybe…this is just my guess…because the sort of music genres where obscurity is “cool”, that particular music culture is based on the romanticising of the “starving artist/social outcast” idea, whereas writing is not so much?
many times for a book to succeed it needs the weight of the author’s reputation to carry it along. by definition obscure books have obscure authors.
music seems to carry its own whether you know who the composer/musician is or not.
(note: conversely, there are many well published books that ought to be obscure because all the book has is the weight of its author name and cannot stand on its own. Sometimes I think there are too many books.)
I love obscure books, but have found that it takes time for truly good obscure books to surface. I confess that I am one of those who tends not to read what everyone else is raving about – I just don’t trust the taste of the masses. However, I have missed out on a few good reads that way.
Sorry Abraham,
THis doesn’t make sense to me.
How can “many” be associated with “not mainstream”.
Wouldn’t “many” mean “mainstream?
Lowell