The Judges We Should Ignore.

As a former musician, I was always interested in ideas. There was no software involved, no expensive gadgets, or even a single tool needed. One could whistle out a melody and be instantly inspired to see where the invisible thread flew. Perhaps it dropped suddenly, never to be whistled again as life got in the way and the cloud of inspiration burst forever. Other times, the melody could be so strong that one would keep repeating it over and over until it became a song within their mind. The melody would then have counter melodies and multiple layers to form a complete recipe with nothing but an idea and some talent. I was once approached to write a full record- 12 songs for domestic release and 2 songs to be released internationally. It was the chance of a lifetime to have full funding for an album based upon my songwriting abilities and to be flown to a list of multiple locations to record. I took the opportunity seriously and instantly wrote 21 songs in seven days- never seated at a piano. My songs would come with nothing more than my mind and a walk along the piers in Seattle. By the time I’d reach a cafe or a place to sit down, the songs would mostly be written. The guitar parts, the piano, some horns, the drums- they would all be filled within my mind. As someone who didn’t have money, I didn’t need to convince the world of my talent. I just needed to convince others who could see what I could see, (or hear) and when they caught the vision, then that’s all that was needed. We’d take the invisible notes floating in space and simply bring them down to earth by materializing them through sound. Talent recognizes talent in art. In business, it is not the same.

It’s a funny switch from having nothing and creating something beautiful, to having everything and looking down on those who can do so. Business minds first look at what has already materialized. You’d hum them a melody and they’d be confused. “Can I just listen to the song on Spotify? You’d need a music video as well- is that on YouTube? And I’d have to take a look at how you break up these videos for extra content on reels. Do you have some links?” They are looking not at the idea itself but the materialization of the idea. Scratch that, they are not even looking at the materialization of the idea but the marketing of the idea. Good? Quality? They are not looking for the ideas themselves. They are looking for whether the thing is proven and build clever ways to make mediocre into a machine. This supposed industry of innovation is nothing more than the last people in the creative factory line. The most value was created initially and they merely want to know, not if it’s good, but if it can be wrapped in hot plastic and shipped to as many consumers as possible.

Of course, this can be obvious to most but I’m coming from the perspective of both camps with a rich history in the arts and attempting to build something FOR artists. The mindset is not the same when pitching a set of ideas to those who do not understand innovation. Again, humming a tune or playing the chorus through iPhone speakers as a rough cut is completely different to those who are looking for the talent and idea over the obvious poor quality of what the idea is coming through. Anyone can create beauty with a significant budget. Hand a creative a pen and paper and 100 dollars and I can ensure you they would innovate far more than the business mind. The business mind would attempt to hire the creative to do the work for them and take the credit. Because they are good at marketing without the rubric of quality or the shame that comes with creating something of low standard, their metrics entirely rely on numbers. “Don’t show me the idea, show me the proof.” They’d hire the creative to innovate and then, once enough titles are placed on their names, be at the cushy position as an “expert” to judge innovation. They were nowhere in the process but they now have earned the titles as gatekeepers. Their marketing skills and ambition have served their businesses but it has also served the way they market themselves. They pave themselves as the one who have done much, but they have merely hired the ones who have the skills. It’s comedy to see many of these people think so lowly of the ones who build their entire brand. What did they do? They hired the innovators and feel a sense of moral superiority because they did the easiest thing on the pyramid in the creative process. They cut the ribbon of the product created.

And I get it… that’s how it works and I have no gripe over the process. Money is a spiritual measurement of people served. Find a way to serve people, then decrease the personal effort by hiring those who can continue serving people. The problem exists within the attitudes of those who have not created anything but believe fully in the justification of their positions. I will hum a tune that they do not understand, but they love a good cover song. A cover song is a recognizable, proven hit. They lack taste or any rubric of quality but they somehow have become the judges that measure whether a product is worthy of acceptance in programs that hand out cash to build out the product. The difference between an artist and a business gatekeeper is that an artist thinks within the realm of possibility. They have to think of a budget first with a list of things they need. To create a painting- they think of the brushes involved, the cost of paint, the canvas and the amount of time put in. A musician may think of the gear he needs and perhaps a team of people who can make his vision come to life through studio time, (chopped up in affordable bites). A chef first looks in the refrigerator to see the ingredients he has, and then creates something from what is there. A business gatekeeper thinks of none of those things. They think FROM money. The record labels think, “This needs 100,000 behind this song.” The man who bought the house says, “I want a modern feel to this living room,” and then gets credit when his guests come in for how incredible his taste is. Again, no problem of course with the way life goes, but the attitude I’ve witnessed and the chasm between business and artists is laughable.

“Creatives need to be found,” is a foreign concept to gatekeepers who use creatives for everything. They do not know the creative process- that everything is built around iterations. If you do not understand the concept of ideas, then how can you measure whether the product would be successful? A songwriter can take a song to a producer, who sees where the song is going and then fills in the gap. The producer may sit in the chair beside the mixing engineer who sees where the song is going, and like a relay race, hands the baton off to polish up the product. The mastering engineer is handed a product and can see the vision of where it is going. He masters the song and hands it back to the artist. The artist then needs a persona that matches the song they are to release, so they may speak to graphic artists, videographers, and photographers to create some sort of “brand.” The business industry is completely backwards. The innovators are supposed to take the core idea that is brilliant in the eyes of any other innovator, and then go straight to a panel of out of touch label executives? Even in the separate realm of finding jobs in general, those applying to positions must go through the people LEAST qualified to understand their position? I have yet to find a single recruiter who understands the job I’ve applied to. It’s the same with all the pitches I’ve done. The hierarchy is completely backwards. Innovators should pitch to other innovators. Professionals should first be talking to those who understand the industry they are in. In the absence of proper hierarchy, talent is being wasted and discouraged for no reason from people who have the least qualifications amongst the group. I’ve never heard of someone wanting to be a recruiter, yet these are the people calling the shots. I’ve known plenty of people who dream of being an engineer, a designer, an animator, in production- and who do they have to go through? The person without the skillset to judge them in order for them to pursue their dreams? I’ve heard of plenty of people who want to call the shots- but what are their talents?

Why are so many innovators college drop outs? They have found a way to exist outside of structure, and yet the gatekeepers are the ones who have the most structured paths amongst the working class. Those who exist in chaos are judged by those with the strictest guidelines for a life of order. Chaos produces innovation. The adventure seeker, the one who breaks the rules, the one who goes outside the norm is judged by the one who checks the boxes of a structured path. I end with the image that came to mind when typing the first few sentences. Maggie Rogers, a once student at NYU showed her song “Alaska” to Pharrell. It’s a now viral moment of Pharrell giving the understanding side eye to the camera as if to say, “Dude.” We get it. Why are we looking at Pharrell? Why is she presenting her work to Pharrell? Why does a look of relief and joy spread across her face when Pharrell is a bit speechless after listening to the song? Because an innovator pitched to an innovator.

I wrote this blog, like all my blogs, entirely through human hands. I have evolved from my notebooks filled with scribbled writings. What does that mean? It means I’m communicating ideas, (errors and all) directly to the few people who read this. That’s a skill. It’s not filtered through ChatGPT. It doesn’t use algorithms or machines like recruiting sites or others who rely heavily on metrics to see what the person on the other end of the screen desires. I am, in some way, innovating simply by attempting to paint pictures with my words to someone who then either understands the idea or doesn’t. Chaos needs order but should not be judged by order. Chaos needs resource managed by order but make no mistake- order NEEDS chaos. It needs innovation. It relies on innovation. The people who are program managers to already structured paths, from structured means, from structured schools, from structured philosophies of doing things should not look down upon the innovator. The innovator is often the drop out who ignored all of the instructions from the very people who scoff at them. If you’re a creative, refuse to be judged so strictly by those who are simply not qualified to do so. Trust in your ideas and pitch to those who are also creative. That’s the nod of approval you seek, and in fact, those are the skillsets that will probably help you build something special. We all need funds- but we shouldn’t look to the current metrics and hierarchy on how success is achieved. You can do it yourself and we can do it amongst each other.