Author: Nathan
Window Dressing and the Art of Drawing Listeners In
What entices you to walk into a store rather than just walk past it?
Usually, it gives off a vibe, has a tempting offer, or piques your curiosity in some way.
If you see an empty storefront with a single item perched on otherwise bare shelves, you’ll probably keep walking—especially if there are plenty of other stores vying for your attention.
The same applies when you upload a song or two and throw them into cyberspace. You’re trying to entice people to stop what they’re doing and step into your otherwise empty store. The same analogy works for a gallery where only a single painting hangs.
Emptiness seldom attracts.
For many years, my mother worked in a jeweler’s. Her bosses were focused on making a profit—rightly so. But she saw things through an artist’s lens.
Her favorite part of the job? Window dressing. She loved the creativity involved, the chance to make something beautiful and inviting.
So when it comes to your art, think beyond just putting things out there. Build a curated collection. Present it with care. Don’t just toss songs onto digital shelves—decorate your storefront. Make it a creative endeavor, not just a business decision.
One song, one piece of art, is never enough. Gradually build your gallery in a way that leaves people feeling nourished, the way you do after touring a great exhibit.
And curate with coherence. There’s an art gallery in the center of Manchester filled with paintings and sculptures, yet nothing seems to fit together. You leave feeling a little conflicted. You may write in many genres and styles, which is fine. But take your audience into account. Visualise your audience experiencing your creations, like visitors in a gallery.
Whatever your genre, your audience should be able to see the logic in what you’re doing. Help them by presenting your work with intention.
Use your creativity to invite them in, not just to listen but to experience.
Is Travel Writing Extinct?
Around the year 2000, someone recommended Riding the Iron Rooster by Paul Theroux to me. It’s a book about his travels around China in the eighties.
I’d never heard of him, but I was at the beginning of my own Chinese learning journey, and his observations and overall travelling ‘style’ had a big impact on me. He came across like a literary version of Anthony Bourdain—moody, opinionated, and intriguing.
By the time I made it to China in 2001, much of the book was out of date, but the trains were still old and slow (the titular Iron Roosters).
My travelling companion and I would sit on tiny flip-down seats next to the train windows at the foot of our hard sleeper bunks, and I would practice Chinese with the locals, asking them ‘controversial’ questions we thought Theroux might ask. Do you like America? What do you think of Mao?
Theroux is foremost a writer of literature, able to paint a vivid picture of his experiences that you can absorb and feel. Colin Thubron has a similar skill.
But they are both old men now. Who are their replacements? Does travel writing even work—or matter—when we have endless uploads of travellers filming everything in sight?
Surely the answer is yes. A plane ticket, a selfie stick, and a YouTube account do not an inspiring travel story make.
And yet, these videos get views. Hundreds of thousands of them.
But what do the viewers gain?
I think it depends on how much thought goes into it.
Watching a traveller sit at a street café in Baghdad with his phone facing him is, for many, just another form of procrastination. They numb their minds watching other people do stuff.
Bourdain’s shows—though, obviously, backed up by a sizeable budget—were a good template for what video makers can accomplish. He spent time talking to people, having conversations, listening to the beating heart of the place. His voiceovers captured the moment, and he didn’t sugarcoat his moods, which made the experience feel real and visceral.
It was still television, though, which is full of smoke and mirrors. His episode on Saigon, for example, features him walking into the food area of Ben Thanh market as if it’s a quaint little spot where locals eat. Not true. It’s an overpriced tourist trap. But some artistic license is okay. There’s plenty of fiction in Theroux’s travels books too.
The point is, if we’re going to see less travel writing and more travel videos, can they include conversations with a little substance? Can there be more show, not tell? A little more artistry over virality?
Real Art Transcends Culture
Ryan Tedder makes an interesting point in this interview. He says that in the past, a great song—one that you, your family friends all thought was great—stood a very good chance of becoming a hit.
But now, a song will only gain traction if it’s part of the “culture”.
In other words:
Song of questionable quality + fits TikTok trends = probable hit.
Great song + doesn’t fit TikTok trends = very unlikely hit.
For me, this is more evidence that there are two kinds of songwriters, and you can’t be both:
- Those who write viral hits for the industry, where popularity matters more than integrity.
- Those who write great songs regardless of trends. Some, like The National (I once watched them play a huge stadium, where a security guard told me he’d never heard of them), very gradually build an audience outside the mainstream. Others, like Ken Yates—an excellent songwriter—struggle to find a wide audience.
So these are two separate skill sets.
Confusing them is often the death of my own songwriting. Which is why I keep repeating this thought (probably as a reminder to myself):
You have to be true to yourself and make art, not products. Art has to touch you and come from within to really matter.
Spotify streaming data, TikTok hits, and award ceremonies only reflect what’s trending in popular culture.
Genuine art isn’t defined by trends—it exists beyond them, transcending and outlasting them.
How Low Can You Go
Inheritance, directed by Neil Burger, was filmed entirely on an iPhone.
I watched the movie without knowing this. The slightly jumpy, erratic nature of some scenes only made it feel more human. The tension was palpable.
Afterward, I remembered an old boss of mine telling me, “One day, everyone will have a camera built into their phone.” That was nearly 30 years ago.
What was once impossibly expensive is now relatively affordable.
The same is true for recording equipment. I’ve often felt a little envious of writers, painters, and photographers, who can create professional work with minimal gear and cost. Meanwhile, musicians traditionally needed expensive studio setups just to showcase their work properly.
Do You Really Need a Studio in 2025?
There’s no doubt that high-end gear in the hands of skilled engineers produces superior recordings. But is it absolutely necessary?
If an experienced sound engineer were given a decent audio interface, a solid microphone, and a laptop running Logic Pro, could they produce a recording that sounds truly professional? Would their peers be able to tell if it was made in a high-end studio or in a bedroom?
Would it be the audio equivalent of Inheritance—a compelling work with only subtle hints that it was made outside a traditional production environment?
And does anyone even care about HiFi vs. LoFi anymore?
But how “Lo” Can You Go?
Ultimately, Inheritance works because its foundation is strong—the story, the acting, and the creative shot choices. Post-production undoubtedly gave it the final polish, but great source material always wins. Even Spielberg agrees.
The same applies to music. A great song and a DAW alone won’t guarantee a great recording. You need to refine your recording and mixing skills. You need to capture the moment. And you need to invest in post-production.
That might mean hiring a professional mixing or mastering engineer. But a high-quality mastering plugin used correctly can also work wonders.
Mastering on a Budget
I’m a big fan of Ozone iZotope—it’s basically AI for your mixes. Used carefully, it can elevate your tracks in ways that were once only possible with professional mastering.
A few things I’ve learned using it:
- Don’t push too hot of a signal—watch that output meter.
- The Master Assistant can instantly fix your EQ, or at least mix tweaks you hadn’t noticed.
- It maximizes your volume for streaming without crushing dynamics.
- The stereo width tool, when used sparingly, adds depth without making your mix sound artificial.
Technology Is a Gift—But It’s Not a Replacement
These advancements are a massive win for independent musicians. No doubt, incredible albums will be made in bedrooms. But at the end of the day, technology will never replace great songwriting and performance.
Your Art is Enough
No one ever complains about there being too much bread. So why do we often hear that the world is saturated with too much music?
Maybe because so many releases to Spotify are made primarily in the hope of turning a profit. The lifeblood is thus sucked out of so much art.
When a family enjoys bread made by a thoughtful parent, no one thinks about the price it could have sold for. The point is in the making and the sharing. And then it’s on to the next loaf.
Make music because creating is living, just like baking bread.
Don’t measure the value of your art in terms of money. Create because you love it. Create because you are alive. There are few greater pleasures than producing something that comes from within you, and its worth is not determined by how it compares to other works or the profits they may make.
Whether your work is seen as better or worse than others is not your concern.
The act of creation is a reward in itself. The satisfaction of making something with integrity is your royalty check. So contribute something of substance, and make it with heart.
What Is a Song Worth?
As I write this, the price of gold is about $94 per gram. Gold has an agreed-upon value, meaning a bar of it is worth the same in Beijing as it is in London.
But how much is a song worth? And who decides?
Songs aren’t traded on the stock market. There’s no universally accepted price. Yet, we know “Yesterday” made Paul McCartney a very rich man. Artists sell their back catalogues for millions, relinquishing ownership of their work for an often hefty sum. Their songs, at least in financial terms, have immense value.
But what about Dave from Coventry, who has spent years honing his songwriting craft? His wife and friends agree he’s talented, but will a company pay for his back catalogue? Highly unlikely.
Dave’s songs are worth next to nothing in monetary terms.
Of course, they mean a lot to Dave. Maybe they matter to a few others, too. And if he enjoyed writing them, then his time wasn’t wasted. Monetary value is just one form of worth. Maybe that’s enough for Dave.
But what if, deep down, he believes he’s written a truly great song—something that could stand alongside McCartney’s best? How does he shift the perception of his work from worthless to valuable?
He uploads it online, crafts eye-catching thumbnails, pitches it to companies. He plays it live wherever he can. Still, nothing. The song gains no traction.
Does this mean it wasn’t as good as he thought? Maybe. But is it that simple?
Talented songwriters have watched their albums sink because record labels failed to push them. The songs weren’t bad—other professionals praised them—but praise doesn’t pay the bills. Meanwhile, certain artists are famous more for their image than their music, yet they rack up billions of streams. Their songs might be painfully generic, but their commercial value is undeniable.
This tension got me thinking about Seth Godin’s The Practice. He argues that if your work isn’t resonating, you need to work with more empathy. You can make art solely for yourself, or you can make art for an audience. But if you try to do both, you’ll be trapped—forever trying to convince others to see what you see.
So what does this mean for Dave? Should he stop writing from the heart and start studying the Spotify Top 10? Should he strip out personal lyrics, simplify melodies, and ensure his songs are festival-friendly bangers? More bass drops, more synth stabs—don’t forget a catchy pre-chorus.
Godin surely can’t mean this, because elsewhere he argues that mediocre work is neither loved nor hated—it’s simply ignored. Yet the reality is, bland and predictable songs do become valuable commodities, while thoughtful, well-crafted ones often go unheard.
Why?
Maybe there are a thousand answers. But here’s mine:
If a song is reasonably good but poorly packaged and marketed, it doesn’t matter how good it is or how empathetic the songwriter might be. An attractive pop star in the right clothes, with the right attitude, in the right moment, is infinitely more important than the song itself. And if the artist isn’t willing to relentlessly promote their work and make serious personal sacrifices, the song might as well not exist commercially speaking.
I’d go even further:
The Beatles had the songs, but just as importantly, they had the packaging, the hustle, and the perfect timing. Their music isn’t worth millions today just because of its quality. It’s because of the effort that went into pushing it into the public psyche. Without that, Paul from Liverpool might have done something else entirely, his songs buried on an old tape—just like Dave’s are on his hard drive.
There’s no guarantee that a good song will bring financial reward. It doesn’t matter how well you listen to your audience or how much you sacrifice.
Rick Rubin put it best: “Make art for yourself. Not the audience.” When it comes to songwriting, that rings true. You have to move yourself before you move others.
Selling, on the other hand, requires constant iteration until you hit what the market wants. But real art isn’t business.
Art ceases to be art when it’s refined to maximize mass appeal.
That’s why the music industry is filled with soulless, manufactured hits. Just because millions of people eat burgers at a fast food restaurant doesn’t mean they’re good food. Just because Taylor Swift and Ed Sheeran dominate the charts doesn’t mean they’re making quality music.
I’m not saying they aren’t.
I’m just saying: business and art should not be confused, and the value of a song should not be determined by how well known it is, or how it performs commercially. Some songwriters have even dismissed their biggest hits as lacking real quality.
This leads to a difficult realisation: if money and popularly don’t determine the actual value of your song, what does?
