Remix.run Logo
rglover 15 hours ago

This is the paradox of the post social media world. I see a lot of mid-tier talent—in all sorts of disciplines/industries—being elevated, while what I personally consider the "greats" get a fraction of the attention (e.g., this designer who I love and have bought stuff from but seems to be a relative unknown [1]).

The book "Do the Work" explained it well: "The amateur tweets. The pro works." People who fit into the Shell Silverstein "I'm so good I don't have to brag" bucket aren't as visible because they're working, not talking about working.

Something fairly consistent I've observed: the popular people you see tweeting and on every podcast are likely not very good at what they're popular for.

Sometimes there's overlap, but it's the exception, not the rule.

[1] https://xtian.design/

kens 10 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

The comments consistently describe the victory of self-promotion over real greatness. I had a strange thought: what if that applies to da Vinci too, and we don't know who the real greats of the Renaissance are. You might say, "What about the Mona Lisa?" It turns out that the Mona Lisa wasn't especially famous until it was stolen from the Louvre in 1911.

motorest 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> People who fit into the Shell Silverstein "I'm so good I don't have to brag" bucket aren't as visible because they're working, not talking about working.

It isn't as much as "talking about working" but putting the bulk of their effort in self-promotion.

If you hire someone because they excelled at self-promotion, the reason you hired them is because they excelled at self-promotion. Not because they are great or even good, but because they are good at convincing the likes of you to hire the likes of them.

In business settings this sort of problem ends up being a vicious cycle. Anyone that hires a self-promoting scrub is motivated to make that decision look like a success as well, otherwise the scrub's failure will also be their own failure. If these scrubs output passable work instead of great or even good, that's something you as a manager can work with.

LambdaComplex 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I like live music. I've seen plenty of famous bands play before.

But the best live band I've ever seen was an almost completely unknown local band from Florida (that almost never played outside that state, as far as I'm aware).

I'm willing to believe that there's an even better band out there somewhere that's never even played outside of a garage.

brulard 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

We had once an awesome unknown band from Belgium coming to play in our local club. I was the only person that came to the concert. For an hour they didn't start to wait for more listeners and they invited me to their table. No one showed up so they played for me and my brother whom I have summoned in the meantime. The best concert I have ever attended.

The band was L.T.D.M.S. (https://thomasturine.com/bands/ltdms/)

tfeldmann an hour ago | parent [-]

They have oceansize vibes. Must have been a great evening!

hellotheretoday 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Music is subjective, of course, but I know a lot of people who dedicated an extreme amount of their lives to it. Went to conservatory, practiced for literally hours a day since they were young children into their now late 30s, write music constantly for decades, etc. Some of the best music I’ve ever heard in my life has come from these people and they’re all unknown. They teach music, they gig, they work in other career paths, some still do part time stuff hoping it will eventually pan out, but none of them have any kind of fanbase or recognition really. I think the biggest one has like 800 streams a month on Spotify with 2k listeners? It’s nothing, like a few dollars a month

ghaff 7 hours ago | parent [-]

There’s an incredible amount of luck involved in making it big in the arts. Some of it is talent. Some of it is hard work. But a lot is luck. Almost certainly compared to professions where reasonable competence and work mostly guarantee a decent living.

Mawr 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I want to believe that but I've never seen any compelling concrete examples. Got any music that's way better than its popularity/recognition would indicate?

circlefavshape 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

https://open.spotify.com/artist/2aO9679RPKtDZhaVAOvIWZ?si=iN...

https://open.spotify.com/artist/4pD0TDma5JQSsb8aVN4Orb?si=Fv...

https://open.spotify.com/artist/2Mp29qv5usMDjpbCc5E33w?si=p3...

ghaff 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There are a number of singer/songwriters/folk who I’ve really liked who were pretty obscure like Heather Alexander, Kathy Mar, etc. may not be to your taste but I’ve liked and certainly not well known.

-__---____-ZXyw 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As someone who has played a fair amount of music with different people in different places, and who has attended quite a few odd little gigs and band practices and playing-in-your-friend's-house type things, as well as other types of mad musical moments, this is to be expected.

The idea of album sales or concert sales or youtube views or whatever being indicitave of music "quality" is a horrid historical perversion which is antithetical to the role music has played and still could maybe play in human life.

The worst thing about the modern commercial music industry, from my perspective, isn't the music that gets produced, but rather this made-up binary of professional music-salespeople ("musicians") on the one hand, and music-consuming plebs on the other.

The professional musician is measured by their album sales and ticket sales and spotify/chart success and their views on the big platforms, and that's it, end of story. The public is allowed an "opinion" on which "superstar" is "better", i.e., they pick kendrick or drake, or one k-pop band or the other, and that's it, you vibe to your type of playlist on spotify and fork over the money for the big shows and that's your musical existence.

I'm not sure how to say it in a way that doesn't sound like stale traditionalism or toothless hippie nostalgia, but I mean it in a real hard sense: "real music" happens when real people express themselves musically, on their own or in a communal setting.

It can be a kid doing her fifth piano class and you play two chords repeatedly and ask her to pick something in the room and say something about it and then you both take turns throwing out a melody and see where you end up. It can be three people hungover around a kitchen table who swap instruments for a few tunes, 5 friends in a garage screaming about their feelings, 10 friends in a cacophonous and smoky practice studio somewhere.

Your friend who never played any instrument who came along to hang out who starts chanting melodically and repetitively into a spare microphone at some stage can be the one who pushes the thing to some new level no one saw coming, and then there you all are, in this new musical moment.

Anyway. I didn't mean to rant there, but maybe you get my point.

nonrandomstring 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The world is filled with brilliant people.

My experience is with sound designers. The nub of the art is to remain invisible, unobtrusive. A good sound designer is never noticed.

Many created the synth patches for famous music keyboards like the Korg M-series or Yamaha DX-series, and they hear their sounds on the radio/Spotify every single day attributed to someone else... some band name or whatever.

I'm sure there are folks here who designed amazing VFX plugins/algorithms and recognise their work in Hollywood blockbusters, and know that the VFX "artist" simply used the default settings.

So I'd go further: most of the designers whose work forms part of our daily lives are people "you've never heard of". Like people who design road layouts for traffic safety, design road signs, public information. They're hardly household names.

If working in human fields of arts, design and entertainment has taught me anything it's that even though some extreme egos can drive success, self-advancement and skill are on absolutely orthogonal axes.

And as the (very good) discussion here yesterday about billionaire lottery winners went.... most "successful" tech names also are nothing but the arbitrary outcomes of the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune and hindsight "winner" bias. There were ten other garage computer builders who had better products than Woz and Jobs, and a dozen better search engine designs than Page rank... But we need a narrative that makes a few people "heroes", because that's what keeps the show running.

We've yet to design/discover a way of being that celebrates the bottom part of the iceberg - the thousands of enablers of every "star", often whose work is plundered. "AI stealing Art" is the natural outcome of this blindside.

robertlagrant 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> and a dozen better search engine designs than Page rank

Which search engine was better than Google when Google came out?

spondylosaurus 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There's the old paradox about self-help gurus and how they're rarely successful because they take their own advice, but because they get paid to share their advice... I feel like the "mid-tier creative who's famous on socials" phenomenon is similar, although I couldn't exactly say how.

motorest 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> There's the old paradox about self-help gurus and how they're rarely successful because they take their own advice, but because they get paid to share their advice...

That's not a paradox. It's plain old fraud, or to put it mildly it's marketing and self-promoting. The self-help gurus that get paid are those who convinced people who see help to pay them instead of the next guy. What gets the foot in the door is not substance, but the illusion and promise of substance.

dustincoates 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I learned recently that Tony Robbins set out to be a motivational speaker in his teens. I was connected to someone on LinkedIn who listed himself as a "thought leader" one year into his career!

How can you be either of those without any experience under your belt?

But, of course, at least for the motivational speaker, a back of experience doesn't matter, because that's not what people are paying for. They're paying for a few hours where they can get pumped up, and give them an energy which will carry them until the next session, not requiring them to actually do any of the hard work to change their lives.

slightwinder an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> This is the paradox of the post social media world. I see a lot of mid-tier talent—in all sorts of disciplines/industries—being elevated, while what I personally consider the "greats" get a fraction of the attention (e.g., this designer who I love and have bought stuff from but seems to be a relative unknown [1]).

Attention comes mainly from understanding. And all people are in the mid to low-tier of understanding things outside their own specialization, and too often even within their own specialization.

So to understand something great, you have to have enough insight into that area to see the greatness. And on the other side, there is also the false perception of thinking something is great, while you are just too low in your understanding, to see why it's just mid. Isn't this also basically what Dunning-Kruger-effect is about?

hammock an hour ago | parent [-]

Bell curve meme

Neanderthal: "I know I'm a great designer but no one understands me"

Midwit: "If I tweet enough I'll get well known and become great"

Monk: "I know I'm a great designer but no one understands me"

criddell 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Maybe you have it backwards. The social media post isn't about the work, rather the work is the social media post.

In that context, doing the work would refer to creating social media posts and the subject of those posts is secondary.

marklubi 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Make Something People Want. Have the poster framed on the wall in my office. It's part of the ethos I've lived my life by.

Changed an industry, made a lot of money, and pretty much nobody knows who I am (which I'm completely fine with). Not looking for fame, don't want it.

marginalia_nu 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

At least in my personal experience, the combination of doing interesting things and talking about them in a somewhat public setting is something almost all really successful people do, and what few don't have a friend who is a hype man for them.

While there are charlatans that are all talk, it's extremely common among genuinely brilliant people to work too much and don't do enough talking about it. Talking about what you're doing opens doors. It connects you with other people. It gets you funded. Being brilliant in obscurity does not.

Richard Feynman and Julian Schwinger won the nobel prize the same year. Both are fairly brilliant theoretical physicists and the prize was well deserved, but only one of them was charismatic and loved to talk about himself and what he was doing, and as a result, is much more of a household name even today.

mclau157 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Honestly some of the best content I have been seeing is MIT application videos (both accepted and rejected), it is high school level but it leads to a lot of interesting discussions

zombot 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The majority has exceedingly bad taste, that's why mediocrity and bad taste always seem to win.

begueradj 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's not hard work or talent that brings fame, recognition or promotion at any workplace of any industry.

zombot 10 hours ago | parent [-]

It happens, but it's rare.

guappa 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Surely completely by mistake

jjmarr 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The Giving Tree (by Shel Silverstein) came out in the same year my dad was born. But my parents still read it to me.

I still don't understand why I have such a strong reaction to the book. It feels like the message is "take care of your parents instead of just taking from them".

pixl97 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean advertising is advertising. You could have the best program in the world but if no one knows about it chances are you're not going to get rich.

Now I'm not much for salespeople in general, but I do understand their purpose.

tough 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is more true for indie hackers or solo team founders i guess, if you're just a designer in a big corp, you don't usually handle marketing beyond trying to build/design a marketeable product, devrel and other positions are more marketing like

rf15 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> you're not going to get rich

which shouldn't be a goal onto itself, unless you really want to get completely detached and insane like every other billionaire.

godelski 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Honestly, that seems like a solvable problem. Certainly not easy, certainly tremendously difficult, but I'm not sure it is impossible nor that we can't make strides in that direction. We're fundamentally talking about a search algorithm, with specific criteria.

I doubt there would be good money in creating this, but certainly it would create a lot of value and benefit many just from the fact that if we channel limited resources to those more likely to create better things, then we all benefit. I'd imagine that even a poorly defined metric would be an improvement upon the current one: visibility. I'm sure any new metric will also be hacked but we're grossly misaligned right now and so even a poorly aligned system could be better. The bar is just really low.

Mawr 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Advertising is easy, making the best program is hard. If you have the best program already, solving the advertising problem is a non issue.