The Arts Issue

THE ARTS ISSUE

COVER BY EASTON SELF

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR During my very first semester at NYU, my Writing the Essay professor, while talking about Damien Hirst’s piece “The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living” (which, for those yet to take the course, is simply a taxidermied tiger shark floating in a vitrine of formaldehyde), casually said what has sat with me ever since as one of the most important things to remember about art in our modern era: “Art now lies in the concept, not the execution.” He was referring to the way that all of the weight of Hirst’s piece was not in the relatively unimpressive setup of a dead shark in a tank, but in the things the shark made viewers think. Just like Marcel Duchamp’s famed 1917 piece “Fountain” (a urinal set on a stool, signed brashly with the artist’s pseudonym “R.Mutt”), it was not the art, but the reaction, that drove the artist to create.

Three years and a lot of musedover cups of coffee later, I’ve decided that the principle of finding the significance of art in its concept is not only limited to sculptures that we otherwise would dismiss as lazily provocative or, even more boldly, not art, but is important to consider in the context of all art. The context of a piece’s conceptual significance is crucial for understanding an artist’s purpose and the art’s place in the larger fabric of culture. It is what differentiates art-for-thinking from art-for-entertainment; it is what allows Katy Perry to exist and be considered a musician and an artist alongside her peers like Father John Misty and Yo-Yo Ma. I wanted to make this theme focus on one of the most determining fac-

Hailey Nuthals Arts Editor

tors in a piece’s conception, creation and reception: the budget and resources available to it by sheer virtue of who is involved in making the work. The way that an artist’s budget affects their art can often be clearly seen. The effects of its thus-determined genre, however, are harder to discern. What happens when a major music record label releases a CD through the independent record label that it owns? Is a musician still indie if they sound like The Decemberists but are signed to a label?

Past classification, once we pin down what’s indie, how does this influence the way we think about the artwork or listen to the music or watch the movie? What awards is it eligible for? Who gets the credit for work well done? What situations are best to engage with that art? The truth is, calling something “major” or “indie” affects a lot more than the project’s budget. There are biases built up around every label we can put on art. There are privileges given to certain categories and not others, and comparisons and contrasts are made according to those categories.

This issue holds a lot of opinions, facts and stories. It holds a lot of hard work. Mostly, it holds a lot of art. I encourage you, the reader, to read it and consider what it means — what it all means. Not just whether low-budget films are better or whether modern visual art is just a lot of nihilists addicted to cheap cigarettes, but whether you’re putting weight in the execution or the concept. What it means to publish your own book. Whether “high art” is a compliment. Whether “indie” is a genre. Whether it matters.

FILM

HOW TO PLAY

1. IS SUNDANCE NO LONGER CHAMPIONING INDIES? 2. SEXISM IN THE FILM INDUSTRY: BLOCKBUSTERS VS. INDIES 3. ONE WORD WHY INDIE FILMS ARE BETTER: PASSION 4. IN FAVOR OF BLOCKBUSTERS: CASH, EXPLOSIONS AND ARTISTRY 5. WHITEWASHING AND THE MONETARY EXCUSE IN BLOCKBUSTERS AND INDIES THEATER & BOOKS 1. HOW EXACTLY DOES A BOOK GET ON THE NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER LIST? 2. BIGGER, BRIGHTER, BETTER? MAKING THE BROADWAY LEAP OF FAITH 3. MAJOR VS. INDIE PUBLISHING: WHAT SELLS AND WHAT MATTERS 4. TELL IT YOURSELF: THE SELF-PUBLISHING REVOLUTION

MUSIC 1. BEING INDIE: DUBLIN’S ORLA GARTLAND ON CUTTING THROUGH THE NOISE 2. THE OLD CHANCE 3. INVERTEBRATE DOESN’T NEED A SPINE TO STAND OUT

ENTERTAINMENT 1. THE ULTIMATE DEBATE: NETFLIX OR CABLE TV? 2. CABLE VS. NETFLIX: WHY CABLE SHOULD WIN 3. ON SNL AND MAINSTREAM COMEDY 4. TO CONCENTRATE OR NOT TO CONCENTRATE…

4

WASHINGTON SQUARE NEWS | THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2016 | NYUNEWS.COM

FILM

VIA SUNDANCE.ORG

IS SUNDANCE NO LONGER CHAMPIONING INDIES?

BY ANUBHUTI KUMAR STAFF WRITER

The beginning of each year brings with it snow, New Year’s resolutions and the Sundance Film Festival. Sundance is the largest and probably most widely recognized independent film festival in the United States, with nearly 50,000 people in attendance annually in the past few years.

In August 1978, the festival was born in Salt Lake City, Utah as the first film festival in the U.S., and to this day is hosted in the same place.

Sterling Van Wagenen, who served as the head of Robert Redford’s company Wildwood, founded the festival along with John Earle and Cirina Hampton Catania. The original goal of the festival was to showcase only American-made films, and the first year’s lineup included iconic works like “A Streetcar Named Desire,” “Midnight Cowboy” and “Deliverance,” the last of which went

on to be nominated and win multiple Oscars.

Robert Redford chaired the first festival with the aim of displaying to the country the potential and power of independent movies and widening the audience that independent movies receive. Along with this, since Redford called Utah home, he was eager to encourage more filmmaking and filmmakers in Utah.

1991 marked the first festival under its new name: Sundance. Though one of the founding drives for the festival was to showcase American films, it has since become a launching platform for both domestic and international works, with competitive categories for both. It has expanded into international territory in recent years, hosting festivals during the summer in London and also in Hong Kong in October.

Recently, Sundance has

shown movies like “Little Miss Sunshine,” “(500) Days of Summer,” “The Blair Witch Project,” “Napoleon Dynamite” and “Whiplash.” It has also launched the careers of filmmakers like Quentin Tarantino, David O. Russell and Steven Soderbergh. Sundance movies go on to be box office hits and Oscar darlings, a change in the norm for small budget, independent movies.

As Sundance has grown in recent decades, the festival’s founders like Redford have reached an interesting paradox. With so many indie movies launching into the mainstream after screening at the festival, money has poured into it along with support from studios. Redford himself has voiced concern about not wanting to “chase the money.”

The festival has done its dues to bring indie movies to a wider audience, giving

audiences movies about topics which have rarely been seen on film before. At the same time, there is concern that Sundance might be becoming more and more commercialized, presenting larger movies that in fact keep smaller films from being screened around the country.

The Sundance Film Festival has become synonymous with independent movies around the country and even around the world. But as it becomes bigger, even more widely known and commercial, it risks losing what made it unique in the first place: the fact that it presented small budgeted movies by unestablished filmmakers with little support who still manage to create work that is interesting, different and enthralling.

Email Anubhuti Kumar at film@nyunews.com.

NYUNEWS.COM | THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2016 | WASHINGTON SQUARE NEWS

SEXISM IN THE FILM INDUSTRY: BLOCKBUSTERS VS. INDIES

BY SOPHIE BENNETT CONTRIBUTING WRITER

Between the amorphous concept of Hollywood and the innumerable independent producers of television and movies, the film and TV industries are vast and ever-expanding businesses. These industries rely on both men and women as audience members, yet the ratio of male to female filmmakers has always heavily favored the former.

Throughout the history of the film business, women have had many highs and lows, starting out with a level ratio of women in the industry, followed by a period of barely any female involvement at all.

Then when the second-wave of feminism hit, in the 1960s, female filmmakers began popping up again.

However, not even twenty years after the decade of growth, that number has dropped drastically. Luckily, during the second-wave of feminism there was a much stronger anti-Hollywood climate, which led to the rise of the independent film industry.

This less commercially driven climate has given women the most space to make films in the last 40 years. Although there are still women in Hollywood, indie films are where women have been able to gain the most success.

Even now, the statistics comparing women working in indies versus blockbusters are disparaging. Although both are horrifyingly low, the independent market has a noticeably higher success rate for women. The Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film released statistics for 2014 showing that in high budget movies, “85 percent of films had no female directors, 80 percent had no female writers, 33 percent had no female producers, 78 percent had no female editors and 92 percent had no female cinematographers.” Comparatively, “women accounted for 25 percent of directors, writers, producers, executive producers, editors and cinematographers working on the indie films screened at U.S. festivals in 2015-2016.”

There is also a major difference when men and women filmmakers vie for positions in the industry. In blockbusters, women tend to work as producers and editors. Women in the industry began to work as editors during film’s formational years, when editing was associated with sewing.

When it comes to independent movies, directing, writing and producing have the highest numbers of women. In the

indie film industry, if there is at least one female director or writer involved in a production, the percentage of women in all the other positions almost always doubles.

Unfortunately, the number of women directors in indies is still very low, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that the industry tends to give women more opportunities. It isn’t difficult to find a reason for why these statistics aren’t changing. Stories of women being flatly denied jobs because of their gender are a regular occurrence, as well as female directors encountering a lack of respect while working.

It is disturbing that this attitude can be attributed to beliefs that women simply aren’t as talented or that they lack ambition.

These stereotypes, although extremely outdated, are very much alive on film sets. Even though the statistics have remained the same for decades, the public scrutiny surrounding this issue has increased in recent years. The truth of the matter is that women comprise half of the audience for the entirety of the film industry and should be represented both onscreen and off.

Email Sophie Bennett at film@nyunews.com.

VIA EONLINE.COM

5

6

WASHINGTON SQUARE NEWS | THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2016 | NYUNEWS.COM

FILM

ONE WORD WHY INDIE FILMS ARE BETTER: PASSION

BY THOMAS PRICE CONTRIBUTING WRITER

To say I love indie movies is to say that I love art. It is to say that I love passion and creativity. For me, indie films represent all that is good about filmmaking and all that is good about people. They are the home for those who tell stories and take risks, while being unashamed in their approach and allowing themselves to care about their work beyond its monetary value.

It is films like Destin Daniel Cretton’s “Short Term 12” that exemplify these qualities. With its engaging, diverse and powerful performances, as well as its emotional, raw score and breathtakingly intimate cinematography, the film shows the audience the complex and honest lives of the people working and living at a group home for at-risk teenagers.

The sharp writing in Taika Waititi and Jemaine Clement’s “What We Do in the Shadows,” centering on vampire roommates and eclectically presented in mockumentary style, made audiences laugh. It is films like these that show the creativity and joy that are only seen in independent works.

It is films like Patrick Kack-Brice’s “The Overnight” that show the freedom, quirkiness and poignancy that have become so uncommon in blockbusters. Its raunchy themes, bold directorial and visual risks and tonal duality help to create a strong emotional core in what could have been nothing more than a sex comedy about a pair of swingers and their unknowing guests.

These three films are vastly different in many ways but are held together by a common thread: each

includes the idiosyncratic qualities of independent movies. When filmmakers aren’t tethered by dollar-centric studio demands and the pressure to sell to as many demographics as possible, they have the ability to make anything their minds desire. Without these obligations, filmmakers are afforded the freedom to tell stories precisely how they are meant to be told.

I have loved film for as long as I can remember, and with each passing year I find myself more enamored with it. At the movies I saw new worlds and different perspectives, ones I had never thought of before. I saw people who cared about the medium and who cared about making something worth watching through hard work both in front of and behind the camera. I think somewhere

along the way, the big budget spectacles lost a piece of that. It is no longer about creating something worth watching, but instead something worth selling.

In indie films I see the passion still brimming over. I see those who want to create art, those who want to tell stories that add to the human experience. I see them produce visual poetry and show moments of honest and unflinching emotion. And sometimes, I see them fail miserably, wholly misfiring. But in truth, their failure was still built on pure intentions, which is far more telling than even the box office successes of a big budget blockbuster.

Email Thomas Price at film@nyunews.com.

BY CARTER GLACE STAFF WRITER

IN FAVOR OF BLOCKBUSTERS: CASH, EXPLOSIONS AND ARTISTRY

A distaste for blockbusters – so often rooted in snobbery – has escalated in the past few years, along with the rise of superhero movies, massive franchise tent poles and consistent reboots. To a certain extent, I sympathize. Even as a comic book fan, the innumerable upcoming releases make me feel tired. But with these caveats, I still find our anti-blockbuster culture baffling, because even with the negatives, the blockbuster scene has never been more exciting, fresh and unique.

For all the talk about the return of the studio system, as producers assert themselves, we are seeing a score of eclectic, auteur filmmakers being given the keys to big budget films. Animation director Brad Bird was allowed to resurrect the “Mission Impossible” franchise after five years and made something spectacular in “Ghost Protocol.” James Gunn went from making hyper-violent B-movies

to making the effervescent “Guardians of the Galaxy,” a move characteristic of the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe, which is filled with strange and creative directors. And Chris Miller and Phil Lord were given the keys to “The Lego Movie” and turned what seemed like the most shameless cash-in idea ever into a masterpiece.

These aren’t yes men. These are artists with very specific visions and ideas being given millions to make films that are utterly theirs. The result is the most diverse collection of blockbuster films we’ve seen in quite some time. Since 2010, we’ve seen the likes of “Inception,” “Scott Pilgrim vs. The World,” “Gravity,” “Life of Pi” and “Mad Max: Fury Road,” and the only thing they all share is their arguable distinction as blockbusters.

We are also seeing a massive swell in diverse voices. “Selma” director Ava DuVernay has

been signed on to direct a new “A Wrinkle in Time” adaptation.

Ryan Coogler not only was given the keys to make the excellent “Creed,” but is now set to direct a “Black Panther” film. James Wann has now made three major horror series in “Insidious,” “Saw” and “The Conjuring,” as well as the monumentally successful “Fast and Furious 7.”

And that’s before we get into more diverse roles in the blockbuster space, as more and more films star female leads — “Ghostbusters” and “Bad Moms,” to name a few. The independent genre is no longer the only place to find diverse creators; time and time again, these diverse voices are hitting home runs on the blockbuster scene.

Honestly, for all the rage against remakes, reboots and sequels, the ones that have been good are

emphatically good, making the bad ones worth enduring. “Creed,” “Mad Max,” “Star Wars: The Force Awakens,” the “Mission Impossible” films, the latter day “Fast and Furious” films, “Ghostbusters.”

This isn’t even including another Disney renaissance, where the animated field has studios firing on all cylinders, producing “Inside Out” and “Frozen” among other acclaimed works.

The sheer amount of films being made today hides the fact that the core of the blockbuster scene has never been better. It has never been as creative, strange, eclectic and exciting as it is now. And with people like Rian Johnson being handed the reins to “Star Wars,” it seems as though Hollywood wants to keep the spark alive.

Email Carter Glace at film@nyunews.com.

NYUNEWS.COM | THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2016 | WASHINGTON SQUARE NEWS

WHITEWASHING AND THE MONETARY EXCUSE IN BLOCKBUSTERS AND INDIES With the exclusively white nominations of the 2015 Oscars and the recent casting of Zendaya in the upcoming “Spider-Man: Homecoming” movie, the issues of racial representation and diversity in the media have been subjects of major debate. Specifically, the whitewashing of recent films has left moviegoers frustrated with the constant erasure of people of color and their stories. Whitewashing, the casting of white actors to play originally non-white roles, has occurred consistently throughout the history of film.

With the rise of political correctness and social justice, the issue of whitewashing has been the center of discussion in conversations on the growth of racial tensions and inequality.

In the scope of the blockbusters vs. indies debate, block-

buster films are the main culprit, prioritizing white audiences and potential profit over representation and historical accuracy. Recent examples include “Stonewall,” “Gods of Egypt,” “Aloha” and the upcoming “Ghost in the Shell.” By whitewashing these roles, the film industry fails to acknowledge the inherent cultural aspects of these stories.

As the film industry continues to cast white, brand name actors instead of people of color, the general public grows more willing to call out the industry for its racism. In the upcoming Marvel installment “Doctor Strange,” Tilda Swinton, a white woman, was cast to play a Tibetan sorcerer. When Marvel received negative criticism from the public, the writers of the movie tried to defend their

decision by explaining that casting a Tibetan actor would upset Chinese audiences due to the tense relationship between the two countries. In short, the profits from China, the second largest box office in the world, is more important to Marvel than the accurate representation of East Asian characters and the diversity of the media.

When it comes to independent films, whitewashing isn’t always as easy to pinpoint. While indie films are generally more willing to cast a more diverse group of actors, their roles and stories typically aren’t written for people of color. Sometimes indie films fail to cast any people of color, but are excused under the guise of a lack of funding and resources. With a budget of only $1 million, “Palo Alto” failed to cast any people of color, but somehow managed to hire James Franco and Emma Roberts, two high-profile actors. Although none of the roles in the film were written for people of color, the film neglected to represent Palo

VIA BLASTR.COM

7

BY RYAN QUAN CONTRIBUTING WRITER

Alto’s non-white community, which accounts for one-third of its population. The problem lies in the fact that the writing teams for these movies are limited and often fail to account for diversity and representation.

The issue with whitewashing coincides with the growing racial tensions of the modern world. As issues of racism continue to be topics of public and political conversation, the accurate representation of people of color is more important now than it has ever been. Without a realistic portrayal, audiences of color are limited in terms of relatable characters and actors.

Finding people with similar experiences and struggles is an important part of understanding their identities. With the rise of social justice, it is important for people to speak up against the whitewashing of our media in order to prevent the inherent problems causing racism within our society.

Email Ryan Quan at arts@nyunews.com.

VIA JEZEBEL.COM

8

WASHINGTON SQUARE NEWS | THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2016 | NYUNEWS.COM

ENTERTAINMENT

BY LILY DOLIN STAFF WRITER

Netflix has become an integral part of our cultural society. It now seems that everyone is preoccupied with surfing Netflix recommendations, binge watching hours of TV and even partaking in Netflix and chill. With this online streaming service slowly taking over the realm of entertainment, it can be easy to forget about Netflix’s predecessor — cable television.

Until recently, most people would have considered Netflix to be the alternative to traditional television services. It doesn’t seem like too long ago when families and friends would crowd around the TV to watch their favorite weekly shows. There’s even a whole episode of “The Office” centered around a “Glee” viewing party. Now it seems as though watching cable TV has become almost obsolete.

Online television streaming was not a big thing, until it was.

The benefits of online streaming, ranging from accessibility to affordability, are a major draw. By 2016, Netflix had more than 33.3 million subscribers, hardly a small feat. Meanwhile, cable television companies have been hemor-

rhaging money due to share value drops. It seems as though the media world is headed towards a new normal.

This all leads to the main question: which is better, cable or Netflix? The answer, while tough to admit, is Netflix. For so long traditional television has been a societal staple, but in many aspects Netflix outshines its predecessor.

The absence of commercials is one of Netflix’s biggest advantages. Commercials are frustrating to say the least. They can be long, boring and unwanted. Even worse are the week-long waits between television episodes, especially since most shows end with intense cliffhangers. Netflix has done away with both commercials and wait time, allowing viewers to watch entire television seasons with no interruption and binge-watch to their hearts desire.

Advantage: Netflix.

Cost is another factor leading to Netflix’s success. Cable television is expensive; most packages are upwards of $20 or $30 per month.

Netflix, on the other hand, costs an average of $9.99 per month.

For people like college students who can’t afford to spend money

THE ULTIMATE DEBATE: NETFLIX OR CABLE TV? on cable television, Netflix is a cheap alternative.

Netflix original shows also have an edge when it comes to quality.

Cable television shows typically have around 22 episodes per season, with one episode per week.

Since it takes about a week to film one episode, this means that cable shows have tight shooting schedules and must finish all their editing before the next season. In such a rushed environment, quality can sometimes suffer.

On the other hand, Netflix doesn’t have to worry about TV schedules. Shows have fewer episodes per season, about 13, and because of this creators can spend more time filming and editing each episode. As a result, the quality of Netflix’s original series is often better.

Now, this isn’t to say that people don’t watch cable anymore. Many do still watch cable, and there are still quality shows on cable television. However, in the modern age of mobility, individuality and impatience, there is no doubt that Netflix will emerge victorious.

Email Lily Dolin at entertainment@nyunews.com.

NYUNEWS.COM | THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2016 | WASHINGTON SQUARE NEWS

VIA ABCNEWS.COM

CABLE VS. NETFLIX: WHY CABLE SHOULD WIN

BY ANUBHUTI KUMAR STAFF WRITER

The latest debate in the entertainment industry seems to be about the way people are watching television, because habits have evolved with rapidly advancing technology.

With the advent of services such as Netflix, Hulu, HBO GO and Amazon Video, there is a certain amount of convenience that comes with being able to catch up on shows anytime, anywhere. It is easy to go back and watch favorite episodes; a whole day can be spent binge-watching entire seasons. Despite this, traditional cable television has its benefits, and they outweigh those of streaming services.

Take suspenseful, thrilling shows like “Scandal.” Nearly every episode ends with a plot twist or cliffhanger. Half the fun is having to wait until the following week to see how

things turn out, to give yourself the chance to turn over all the possibilities and to discuss with friends. While flying from one episode to the next with the goal of finishing the entire season in one weekend, there isn’t enough time to appreciate the subtleties and suspense that the writers so painstakingly build, and any cliffhangers are laid to rest within minutes.

Second, there is the issue of spoilers. Viewers are at high risk of being exposed to spoilers as they wait out the months it takes for shows to reach Netflix. When it comes to shows created exclusively for Netflix, so many episodes are released at the same time that if you don’t watch them immediately, you’re sure to hear spoilers. Watching episodes as they air on cable resolves

that issue and maintains the intended effect of the show.

Finally, one of the biggest perks of cable television is the community it creates. The final episode of “Seinfeld” aired to an audience of 76 million; a huge portion of the population watched the same thing at the same time and then talked about it the next day.

Watching cable television as it airs creates a sense of community, giving people something in common to talk about every week.

Conversely, when everyone watches shows on their own time, it’s harder to connect with people for fear of spoiling the show before they’ve caught up. Also, shows appear on Netflix months after they air on cable, so it’s hard to feel part of the excitement after the fact. Netflix shows drop their

episodes once a year, so it’s often difficult to maintain enthusiasm and recall key details of the show a year later.

Reality shows are a key example. They are uncommon on streaming services, and are some of the only shows that are still able to maintain the excitement of live television. People are excited each week to see the results and invested enough to watch live in order to vote for their favorite contestants or find out who got the final rose. This is the kind of enthusiasm and immediacy that needs to be redeveloped around fiction, where people cannot wait for a few months until it makes it onto a streaming service, but must watch it as soon as it airs on cable.

Email Anubhuti Kumar at entertainment@nyunews.com.

9

10

WASHINGTON SQUARE NEWS | THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2016 | NYUNEWS.COM

ENTERTAINMENT

ON SNL AND MAINSTREAM COMEDY

In 1975, “Saturday Night Live” premiered on NBC. At the time, “mainstream” was the last word anybody would have used to describe the show. The skits were silly and weird, the comedians used grungy sets and the company called itself the “Not Ready for Prime Time Players.” “SNL” marketed itself as part of the counterculture, and viewers were intrigued by their innovative comedy.

In 2016, calling “SNL” part of the counterculture would be laughable.

Over the course of 40 years, the show has become about as mainstream as comedy can be, adding cast members that are polished and more than ready for prime time.

“SNL” has always indulged in political humor, and while the first years included strong political points about New York’s crime in the seventies, today they prefer to play with both sides of most political arguments as to not alienate parts of their audience. Some have said that their resistance to taking a stance in the post-9/11 years caused them to lose their edge. Now, viewers watch to see funny impressions of politicians and watch their favorite celebrities engage in silly sketches.

BY ADRIENNE MESSINA CONTRIBUTING WRITER

Even if this era of “SNL” is considered mainstream, one of the independent comedy theaters they recruit from is doing some of the most inventive work across the country.

Upright Citizens Brigade, established by Matt Besser, Amy Poehler, Ian Roberts and Matt Walsh, hosts improv and sketch classes, allowing talented comedians to progress into professional comedy groups. From New York to Los Angeles, some of the most popular comedians of our generation are trained at UCB, and that talent includes “SNL’s” Kate McKinnon and Bobby Moynihan.

UCB has three small, intimate theaters where they perform their live comedy. Without the responsibility of appealing to the masses or keeping their content appropriate for a network television audience, they can assume that their small, urban audience of comedy fans won’t be offended by their liberal jokes or dirty language. Because they don’t bear the same responsibility “SNL” does, they are able to offer more freedom to comedians — an appealing quality to both performers and audiences alike, since it leaves more room for creativity.

Tisch sophomore AJ Nickell is involved in UCB improv and says he

used to aim to be on SNL, but he isn’t a huge fan anymore and instead looks forward to continuing at UCB. “‘SNL’ isn’t preferred anymore because there’s little consistency in quality.” Nickell says he would certainly be limited there and that “at UCB, there would be more freedom and less censorship.”

Tisch sophomore Russell Katz, a local comedian and performer in NYU’s Hammerkatz sketch comedy group, has a slightly different perspective. “There are very few aspiring comedians that would turn down “SNL.” It’s a career starter for so many people,” he says.

Katz recognizes “SNL’s” limitations as inevitable but not drastic, adding, “‘SNL’ definitely does some weird sketches and most episodes have at least a dollop or two of vulgarity.”

“SNL” certainly has its limitations, but that comes with the territory of having network television as your platform. But fear not — UCB’s atmosphere and blackbox setting caters to those who prefer their comedy uncensored.

Email Adrienne Messina at entertainment@nyunews.com.

VIA BIRTHMOVIESDEATH.COM

NYUNEWS.COM | THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2016 | WASHINGTON SQUARE NEWS

FILE PHOTO BY CALVIN FALK

TO CONCENTRATE OR NOT TO CONCENTRATE…

BY CARTER GLACE STAFF WRITER

I had set my eyes on Tisch School of the Arts and its illustrious Film and Television department since my junior year of high school. It wasn’t until I got here that I learned about the fascinating Cinema Studies program, the exciting Game Design department or all the other interesting departments in which students can study.

Does that make me regret choosing the Film and Television department? Hell no.

Rather, it’s disappointing that I don’t have much flexibility to branch out into the other courses that Tisch and other NYU colleges offer. But what if there was a way to pick and choose a curriculum from a vast range of schools and departments? That is, theoretically, where Gallatin comes in.

NYU’s Gallatin School of Individualized Study is presented as a personalized path of education, allowing students to pick courses from schools in NYU and create their own concentration. Granted, there are still a handful of required courses, but the majority of a Gallatin student’s course load is still a handpicked selection of classes.

In theory, this freedom sounds wonderful. But in practice, the opportunity is rather more complex. I interviewed Rachel A. G. Gilman, a junior in Gallatin, and got a positive and fascinating picture. Gilman, who originally enrolled at NYU as an undeclared major before transferring to Gallatin, presented the school as something personal and invigorating.

“I was interested in creative writing, journalism and film. [A tour guide] suggested I look into Gallatin because it would be able to offer me a place to explore everything I was interested in. It’s one of the best decisions I’ve made . . . It’s also made me really love learning again.”

Describing her classes, Gilman explains that “Gallatin classes tend to have a lot more discussion in them than other classes. There’s also a lot of emphasis to take the topic you’re studying.”

I also interviewed students from other schools outside of Gallatin to see if they have a more in-depth study in their specific field. An interesting com-

plaint that came up was frustration over each school’s required courses. Simmi Uppaladadium of Stern mentioned how it was difficult to branch out and add electives “without overloading [her] schedule,” while Amanda Choy of Steinhardt transferred into the school because she found the Liberal Studies Core Program was not flexible enough for “classes that pertain to any interesting concentration.”

Despite this, both Uppaladadium and Choy complimented their school’s benefits. As Uppaladadium points out, there “are many Stern-specific clubs” that enrich the Stern experience by focusing on further educating students in finance.

Meanwhile, Choy talked about how “being with peers who are interested in the things that I’m interested in is really exciting for dynamic classes and better educational engagement.”

And of course, I want to throw my hat in the ring as a Tisch student. As far as I see it, required courses can get in the way, but they have also opened up opportunities in film I would have never previously considered, such as cast-

ing and producing. Moreover, they gave me a broad experience and a far wider set of skills with which to navigate the industry.

So is it enough to say schools like Tisch and Stern are great if you know what industry you want to be, while Gallatin is great for people who know the specifics of what they want? Honestly, it would appear that things are a bit more complicated. We are all still learning what we want to get out of the rest of our lives.

Rachel discussed how her “concentration has changed a lot since [she] entered Gallatin, but [she] wouldn’t have realized what [she’s] really interested in without taking the classes.”

The benefit of going to such a large school is that we have opportunities to redefine what interests us. So, be patient, have an open mind and always be willing to explore as many options as possible, because it might lead you somewhere incredible.

Email Carter Glace at entertainment@nyunews.com.

11

12

WASHINGTON SQUARE NEWS | THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2016 | NYUNEWS.COM

THEATER & BOOKS

HOW EXACTLY DOES A BOOK GET ON THE NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER LIST?

BY CAROLINE ZEMAKY CONTRIBUTING WRITER

Landing a highly-contested spot on the New York Times Bestseller List is undeniably huge in advancing an author’s career. There comes a significant increase in sales due to the popularity and visibility that the NYT Bestseller List provides. Getting on this list is often the ultimate goal for any author, whether it’s an unknown writer’s debut novel or J.K Rowling’s seven billionth book.

But how exactly does a book get on the bestseller list? The most common assumption tends to be that the list is simply the books that have sold the most copies, but this is not the case. The process to get on the list is quite subjective. It does not necessarily matter how many copies of a book an author sells; the editors of the Times handpick which books make it to the list.

Self-published author Autumn Kalquist recently spoke out on this matter. In a blog post, she touches on the possibility of the New York Times slighted her even before her book “Fractured Era” became extremely popular.

“The New York Times ‘curates’ their list, and had snubbed self-published authors in the past. I was told it was possible they’d ‘curate’ me off the list no matter how much I’d sold,” Kalquist wrote. After selling 20,000 copies and getting #16 on the USA TODAY’s Bestseller List, Kalquist was confident she’d land a spot on the New York Times Bestseller List as well, but to her frustration, it did not happen. After doing extensive research and finding out that her book had outsold eight of the 15 e-books as well as 10 of the 21 print books that did made the list, she emailed her research and data to the NYT but only got a vague response brushing aside her arguments. One can only wonder if this corrupt, arbitrary process of choosing bestsellers is not even more subjective than we imagine and is biased against indie and self-publishing authors.

Colloquially labeling an author as self-publishing implies that said au-

thor has no separate publisher and there is no other person involved in the book’s sales besides the distributor. The author does not (or cannot) collaborate with major publishing companies (like HarperCollins, Penguin and Hachette Livre). They pay and are paid directly. They are in control of everything from content to design. They are independent in nearly every sense of the word.

Similar to the slim chances for landing an NYT Bestseller spot, another downfall for indie publishers is that they are seldom selected for literary prizes or reviewed by established critics. Given the few luck-ofthe-draw indie authors who have obtained bestseller esteem, there still exist major disadvantages hindering their success. It is an unfair prejudice that favors traditionally published authors and makes it a roll of the dice for everyone else.

And yet, despite often going overlooked, e-books are a huge industry that make it extremely easy for self-published and indie authors to get their books online ready and available for the public. For example, in 2014, Kindle launched a subscription deal called “Kindle Unlimited.” As advertised on Amazon, Kindle Unlimited allows users to “access hundreds of thousands of Kindle books and thousands of audiobooks with Whispersync for Voice.” Most of the selections offered are from indie authors.

Some people may view this as a good thing, as these authors are getting their names and their books out there, but in order to have their book as an option in Kindle

Unlimited, authors must comply with Amazon’s terms of service. In this case, that means not allowing their books in any other retail; essentially, hindering any opportunity their books might have elsewhere.

So although Amazon and Kindle are the largest book-buying company, indie authors must make a choice. Not surprisingly, the few traditional authors that are on Kindle Unlimited are paid more by Amazon than indie authors are. As Huffington Post reporter Mark Coker said, “Amazon is paying certain bestsellers and traditionally published authors more for their participation in Kindle Unlimited than they’re paying indie authors who participate.”

Email Caroline Zemsky at books@ nyunews. com.

VIA NYTIMES.COM

NYUNEWS.COM | THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2016 | WASHINGTON SQUARE NEWS

BIGGER, BRIGHTER, BETTER? MAKING THE BROADWAY LEAP OF FAITH

BY EMMA GORDON CONTRIBUTING WRITER

In the evolution of a piece of theater, a play or a musical, there is almost always one goal: Broadway.

There is a dream that the piece could eventually make it to the top of the theater game and have a chance to see its name in lights.

Countless shows have made that fortunate journey from off or off-off Broadway to the ‘big leagues’ like Jonathan Larson’s “Rent.” But does this jump help or hurt a production?

What happens to a show when it moves from a small, intimate space to the 1000+ audiences of the Great White Way? There are various pros and cons for a small show making the leap from small to large, and often the move could work for one production and not for another.

One factor is the show’s budget.

Unless the original production has wealthy producers already, there would likely be a significant budget difference between the off and on Broadway runs. While one may think getting a lot of money for a production is fantastic, sometimes this harms the show in the long run. Producers run the risk of putting too much money towards making the show big and lavish and Broadway-worthy. Where this could bring a new and exciting tone to the show, it could also damage the unique quality the show holds beforehand. When Finding Neverland transferred from the A.R.T. in Cambridge, Massachusetts to the New York scene with a much larger budget to play with, many of the show’s original, quirky features, such as a human actor playing Barrie’s dog, were lost to actual animals and a much more lavish set. Despite the success of the initial run in Cambridge, the Broadway run lost fervor and gained poor reviews.

Another consideration of the big move is space. Unless a show has

VIA USEDYORKCITY.COM

the unique situation of starting out in a relatively large off-Broadway house, chances are the original house the production played in was relatively small. Making the move to one of the many theaters in Midtown could potentially be the key a production needs to open up and take a show to new levels. On the other end of the scale, the move up could take away the intimacy the show once held. Often the beauty of an off-Broadway show is the almost direct contact or interaction an audience has with the players and the story being told. Where “Hamilton” thrived when it made its leap from the Public to The Richard Rogers, “Eclipsed,” which was also at the Public before moving uptown, almost seemed too small for the larger space the Golden had to offer.

With various shows having the opportunities to move onto Broadway stages, including “Dear Evan Hanson,” which makes the move this fall, whether a show becomes successful on Broadway truly depends on the show itself and how the team navigates the move.

There are some shows that are simply meant for the small intimacy of an off-off Broadway house, and there are some that are destined to shine on Broadway, but it all boils down to how the production shapes up when new resources come into play.

Nevertheless, Broadway is fantastic, and most of what’s produced along the glittering marquis is incredible, but tucked into every crevice of this city are theaters that are just dying to house new work as well. There’s theater everywhere, so it’s an adventure to see what the next big thing will be!

Email Emma Gordon at theater@nyunews.com.

13

14

WASHINGTON SQUARE NEWS | THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2016 | NYUNEWS.COM

THEATER & BOOKS

VIA QUOTATIONOF.COM

Once upon a time, six names were important in American book publishing: Penguin, Random House, Simon and Schuster, Harpercollins, Macmillan and Hachette. Little existed beyond their reach, and they often absorbed everything else. But if you look at a list of the best books of 2015, or of the significant releases this year, you’ll notice some names not affiliated with these big six, like Archipelago Books or New York Review Books.

Some have been toiling away just as long as any of the big six, and others have cropped up in the past decade. Still, many have landed some big hits recently.

So what’s different about independent publishers these days? Mostly, it’s their versatility and the willingness to take a chance where big publishers won’t. Edwin Frank, the founder of NYRB, gave an anecdotal example in an interview with The Paris Review.

“One of the first ‘new’ books we did was Cesar Pavese’s ‘The Moon and Bonfires,’ an unpublished translation by R. W. Flint. He’d done a series for Farrar, Straus and Giroux — a compendium of Pavese’s stuff — and in it he went on and on about how ‘The Moon and the Bonfires,’ though it was Pavese’s best-known book, was perhaps not his most successful. So they decided not to include it. I called him and I said, ‘It’s a pity you didn’t translate ‘The Moon and the Bonfires,’ which is a great book … ’ And he said, Well, actually I did do it, but then I sent it to Roger Straus, who looked at the sales figures and said,

‘Why do I need another fucking book by another fucking Italian communist!’”

“The Moon and the Bonfires” went on to snag an award from PEN America, but aside from accolades, there’s the simple benefit of having a wonderful new book to read. Without Frank taking interest in the book, it would likely have taken many more years until a new translation was published.

Like “The Moon and the Bonfires,” many of these small publishers take a special interest in works in translation –– Archipelago Books only prints translated work. Books like these make up around two to three percent of works read in the English-speaking world according to the BBC. Those sales are not worth a large publisher’s time, but for an independent press aiming for critical acclaim and awards rather than a hit, translations are one way to bring strong works from other countries to a broader audience. The recent translation of “My Struggle” by Archipelago Books has been widely acclaimed, placing its writer Karl Ove Knausgaard within reach of the Nobel. But the six-volume epic is terribly difficult

BY MICHAEL LANDES CONTRIBUTING WRITER

MAJOR VS. INDIE PUBLISHING: WHAT SELLS AND WHAT MATTERS to pitch to a publisher: the most glowing reviews of “My Struggle” mention how boring it is, with dozens of pages devoted to activities like chopping wood or preparing for a party. But the willingness of small publishers to take a chance on such books has changed contemporary literature.

Of course, major publishers have not ignored these achievements. FSG, a Macmillan subsidiary, has already begun reprints of “My Struggle,” and other large houses are hopping on the translation train as well. By no means is this a bad thing, and if anything, it’s a natural step in publishing, by bringing the book to more stores and shelves.

Such a move also lets publishers like Archipelago turn their gaze towards new projects. Their process for finding great books differs at its core from the process of larger publishers; before publication, larger houses ask, will this book sell? Smaller houses ask, does this book deserve to be read? I know which question I would rather have answered.

Email Michael Landes at books@nyunews.com.

NYUNEWS.COM | THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2016 | WASHINGTON SQUARE NEWS

TELL IT YOURSELF: THE SELFPUBLISHING REVOLUTION

BY ALEXANDRA PIERSON THEATER & BOOKS EDITOR

of programs to ease the strain of the self-publishing process.

In addition to their 14 traditional, agent-submitted imprints that publish books in both digital and print formats, they host DIY options such as Kindle Direct Publishing, which focuses on e-books; and CreateSpace, which handles print publications. Both of these options allow writers to sell their books directly on Amazon’s website.

There is also Kindle Worlds, for fan-fiction inspired materials, and Kindle Scout, a crowdsourced publishing program where readers vote on submitted manuscripts. The winning manuscripts are then published by Kindle Press with a five-year contract, $1500 advance and 50 percent e-book royalties, as well as marketing by Amazon. Amazon also offers other tools for authors looking to promote and sell their self-published material. These include audiobook options, “Author Central” pages to house the author’s information directly on Amazon’s website, book giveaways and a membership with Amazon Associates, which provides promotional advertising through Amazon and gives writers 10 percent in referrals.

Self-publishing has many pitfalls — most importantly, that a self-published book does not yet carry the same weight as that of a traditional publisher’s imprint. Besides that, there is the expectation that self-publishing writers will still hire their own team of editors, because everyone, even the most sage of writers, makes mistakes. This is an added expense for which many writers will need to account. Still, the option to self-publish remains a great one, and hopefully many writers will take advantage of this blossoming technology.

EN

GA D

GE T.C OM

Email Alexandra Pierson at apierson@nyuews.com.

VIA

In many ways, technology has revolutionized the way we read. Attention spans feel shorter, whole stories have been clipped into bite-sized, punchy tweets and emotional reactions have been replaced by gifs and emojis. One of the greatest advantages of the digital age is the fact that information has become much more accessible. It follows that as reading changes, so does publishing.

With the advent of the digital age, the field of publishing has been turned on its head in recent years — first with the emergence of e-books, and now with the rise of self-publishing. With the help of technology, professional writers and hobbyists alike can now publish their own material in much the same fashion as the major publishing houses. A step up from the indie zine days of the photocopier, this innovation puts control of the material back into the hands of the writers.

On the one hand, self-publishing allows writers total freedom and creativity in deciding exactly how their story is told. On the other, this places an enormous amount of responsibility on the writer to handle all additional aspects of the publishing process, including cover design, layout, formatting, editing, sales, marketing and distribution — among other things. This is what Amazon author and publishing relations director Neal Thompson referred to as the “democratization of the literary world” in a discussion about Amazon’s self-publishing programs at this year’s Brooklyn Book Festival. For most writers, this process can seem daunting. Depending on the type of material one is trying to publish, the traditional agent-and-imprint route might not be an option.

Amazon.com is currently in the process of developing a number

15

16

WASHINGTON SQUARE NEWS | THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2016 | NYUNEWS.COM

MUSIC

BEING INDIE: DUBLIN’S ORLA GARTLAND ON CUTTING THROUGH THE NOISE The label ‘indie’ is a misnomer — while it implies freedom, the modern indie artist must constantly adapt and deliver in an era of unprecedented change in the music industry. However, these constraints are not always harmful; in fact, flexibility and the ability to meet new challenges are hallmarks of great artists.

In this landscape, 21-year-old Orla Gartland is an exemplar. Gartland, who currently lives in London, is a self-made musician — she began her career busking on Dublin’s Grafton Street with friends Gavin James and the Hudson Taylor brothers, as well as recording videos of covers and originals on her YouTube channel, which has amassed more than 12 million views and 100,000 subscribers. As a result, Gartland has extensive experience in both the live and digital worlds, which is central to her ability to adapt while remaining a top-flight songwriter and performer. With digital success, two critically acclaimed EPs to her name and extensive tour experience — she is currently on tour with fellow Irish pop-rock band Picture This and will support Scottish song-

stress Nina Nesbitt next month — Orla Gartland exemplifies the modern indie musician.

Gartland knows that live and digital performance cannot exist without one another in today’s industry. She believes that her live experience has been invaluable, as “there are so many mini skill sets to master under the whole umbrella of performing.”

Despite her love of life performance, she acknowledges the necessity of being digitally present, although laments how it can sometimes cheapen the artistic value of the work being produced.

“Uploading full songs to Facebook and sponsoring the posts may give great exposure but inevitably you may cheapen the product, although for certain kinds of music that approach can often be the only way to cut through the noise,” Gartland said.

The digital landscape, while loaded with potential for indie artists, can be a cause for concern with regard to the inevitable categorization that guides popular genre-based playlists on streaming services like Spotify. “It’s easy to forget, but as an artist you have

to stay within your logistical means,” Gartland said. “Just because you play solo shows with just an acoustic guitar doesn’t necessarily mean you’re a folk artist or a singer/songwriter, but in a saturated market it can sometimes just be an unfortunate necessity to reduce artists to cheap descriptions!”

The changing means of consuming music leave Gartland somewhat conflicted. Gartland said she, “loves streaming as a consumer, I’d be devastated if the album format disappeared completely because the idea of entire bodies of work woven together with the artist curating every aspect is something magical.” Maintaining the connection between fan and artist is crucially important to Gartland, who believes that buying an album is more personal than just streaming, although she feels that crowd-funding platforms such as Patreon, on which she uploads new, exclusive content such as demos and vlogs, have the potential to rekindle this connection.

Gartland is currently an independent artist, although she doesn’t rule out signing to a major label at some point, believing it can be a practical move.

BY KEVIN SCHULMAN CONTRIBUTING WRITER

“Pushing yourself to the masses is expensive, so I understand from an artist’s perspective why you’d want someone else to foot the bill.”

Likewise, she is open to the idea of syncing her songs for TV or advertisements, which jumpstarted the careers of Northern Irish rockers Snow Patrol and fellow Dubliners Kodaline with features for “Chasing Cars” and “All I Want,” respectively.

Gartland says she’d want the “final say in signing it off though, because I wouldn’t be too keen on my songs backing a ‘Trump for President’ campaign.”

When asked about her definition of success and goals for the future, Gartland demonstrated once again how grounded and focused she is.

“Success for me looks like longevity,” Gartland said. “I’d love to play big venues and sell out tours across the world but really, if I could still be at this in 20 or 30 years with a few albums in and a lovely, loyal following, I’d be chuffed.”

Email Kevin Schulman at music@nyunews.com.

COURTESY OF ORLA GARTLAND

NYUNEWS.COM | THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2016 | WASHINGTON SQUARE NEWS

THE OLD CHANCE In the summer of 2013, between my freshman and sophomore year of high school, I heard my first Chance the Rapper track. I was in a friend’s room, listening to music, when one of my friends jumped on YouTube and pulled up the music video for “Juice,” one of the most popular songs on Chance’s second mixtape “Acid Rap.” I didn’t like it at all.

I was confused. I could barely understand what he was saying and wondered why he kept yelling “ah!” throughout the song. But some part of my brain was intrigued; I had never heard anything like it before. So, I filed it away. By the time sophomore year started, I couldn’t get enough of him.

Despite widespread underground success and acclaim, Chance, at the time of my discovery, was still relatively unknown in mainstream circles. I couldn’t have been happier with that. I delighted in showing off my underground find to my friends (with mixed reviews), and the words, “Who? Never heard of him,” were music to my ears. Exposing people to new music has always been something I’ve loved to do, and I took every opportunity I could.

BY THOMAS LANGE CONTRIBUTING WRITER

As usually happens with incredibly talented individuals (and rightly so), over time they get famous. As most people already know, this is what happened with Chance. After a major endorsement from Kanye at a concert in 2015 where he called Chance “one of the most talented young new artists,” Chance has since skyrocketed to the top of the mainstream consciousness (a feature on the opening track of Kanye’s most recent album, “The Life of Pablo” didn’t hurt too much either). Suddenly, everyone knew him; riding this new wave of recognition, he released his third mixtape, “Coloring Book,” for free in 2016, to massive success.

I didn’t really like “Coloring Book,” and I didn’t really like the new Chance.

Call it selfish, call it close-minded, but I didn’t like the mainstream identity into which Chance had stepped. His charisma, wordplay and energy are unparalleled. But the magic that drew me to him as a sophomore in high school was gone. The new Chance was sanitized, no longer the gritty, acid-dropping stoner that I had grown to love. I know that every artist needs to evolve, and that it

VIA BILLBOARD.COM

was foolish of me to believe that Chance would remain the same as he was three years ago. And yet, some part of me is still holding out for another “Acid Rap.” Few have deserved fame more than Chance. Through it all, he has remained incredibly humble, and still releases all of his music for free. He has remained an independent artist despite the incredible economic advantages of being signed. He buys back concert tickets by the hundreds from scalper websites so his fans don’t have to shell out exorbitant amounts of money to see him perform.

On Sept. 24, he held what was perhaps his crowning achievement, his “Magnificent Coloring Day,” a festival of his creation that sold out the 44,000-seat U.S. Cellular Field in Chicago, with Lil Wayne, Young Thug, 2 Chainz, Tyler the Creator and Alicia Keys performing — to name a few. He is an artist in the best sense of the word, always innovating, always evolving, and he’s finally being internationally recognized because of it. But I miss the old Chance.

Email Thomas Lange at music@nyunews.com.

17

18

WASHINGTON SQUARE NEWS | THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2016 | NYUNEWS.COM

MUSIC

INVERTEBRATE DOESN’T NEED A SPINE TO STAND OUT

BY GILCHRIST GREEN MUSIC EDITOR

Steinhardt junior Ben Locke created the record label Invertebrate in his freshman dorm room in 2014. The independent force operates as jack-of-all trades record label, promotions and management company. Compared to industry giants like Warner Music Group, Invertebrate is miniscule; its employees are just Ben, his friend Greg Jakubik (Steinhardt ‘18) and, to use his words, “a big box of stuff, and a file folder of some forms.” While the company’s size is intimate, it still manages to hold its own, even in as vast a music city as New York. Locke sat down with WSN recently to talk about major labels, the challenges and benefits of a label his size and his hopes for the future.

WSN: How big is Invertebrate?

How many bands do you have on your label?

Ben Locke: Right now we have about five bands on the label’s side. We have Field Trip, who released their first EP last year, CVS

at Night, who we just signed, this band Your Dog that’s based in the Bronx, this act Goodman and Psymon Spine, who are one of our management clients.

WSN: How do you feel about the size of your label?

BL: We’re obviously super small, but nowadays for an artist to sign to a label they have to ask themselves the question, “What can you do for me that I can’t do for myself?” And I think that’s where our management and promotions arm comes in. We are able to get artists shows and guide their career in ways that an artist self-releasing through Bandcamp wouldn’t be able to do on their own. So, that’s the pitch we use to solicit people. But, I have no problem with my size. Like most labels, I hope to get bigger.

WSN: Do you hope to grow into a major label?

BL: I want to bring music to as many people as possible. That’s my goal. So, I have no allegiance

STAFF PHOTO BY ANNA LETSON

to a certain “being-too-big-to-becool” type of mentality.

WSN: How do you feel about major labels?

BL: They’re good. You know, it’s the three big ones — Warner, Universal and Sony. I interned at Universal. It’s cool. They’re doing great things. They’re amazing companies. But, I think with more of the niche labels like myself you have more of a hands-on aspect that I think a lot of artists want and need. You see a lot of artists who aren’t on these big labels, who are on much smaller niche-type things getting lots of success through other outlets such as touring and online presence.

WSN: So besides the benefits of a small label, do you think there are challenges?

BL: Of course. The biggest challenge is getting people to listen to the music, which is really hard especially with social media and the crazy 24-hour news cycle we live in. Songs just come and go, and

it’s really hard to have something that sticks to people. So I think definitely a big thing with our releases is we form a schedule. We strategically will release things at a certain time to generate the most interest in them. But I definitely think the hardest thing is notoriety, just making sure people hear about the release.

WSN: What other types of bands do you want to get on your label?

Do you want them to be New York based?

BL: Some are a couple years out of college. I mean, they’re all young. But, not necessarily. Our mentality is that if the music is good and if we think that we could benefit their career, that’s where we see ourselves coming in. Obviously, it’s hard for us to work with a band that’s not based in New York, but we’d definitely be open to it.

Email Gilchrist Green at music@nyunews.com.

NYUNEWS.COM | THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2016 | WASHINGTON SQUARE NEWS

19

VISIT WSNHIGHLIGHTER.COM FOR WEEKLY TV REVIEWS, CONCERT RECAPS AND MORE

UNDER THE ARCH

WSN’S CREATIVE WRITING BLOG

COME TO OUR SUNDAY PITCH MEETINGS 75 3RD AVE, #SB07 | 4:30 P.M.

WASHINGTON SQUARE NEWS Editor-in-Chief

ALEX BAZELEY Managing Editor

BUSINESS MANAGER

ALEX HANSON

ABBEY WILSON

CIRCULATION MANAGER

WENXUAN NI EASTON SELF Digital Director

NINA JANG Multimedia

ANNA LETSON

75 3rd Ave, #SB07

ADVERTISING

SALES MANAGER

Creative Directors

UNDER THE ARCH: 4:30 P.M. NEWS: 5 P.M. OPINION: 5 P.M. FEATURES: 5:30 P.M. SPORTS: 5:30 P.M. ARTS: 6 P.M. PHOTO/MULTIMEDIA: 6:30 P.M.

violet vision SOPHIE SHAW the highlighter DEJARELLE GAINES under the arch TIA RAMOS

BOBBY WAGNER deputy GRACE HALIO

Assistant Managing Editor

Interested in working for us?

Come to our Sunday Pitch Meetings.

BLOGS

deputy multimedia POLINA BUCHAK photo MILES WEINRIB video TATIANA PEREZ deputy photo SARAH PARK Social Media Editors

JESSICA MARTINEZ SOPHIE LEWIS

RHEA NAYAK DEVIN PADILLA CREATIVE DIRECTOR, W MEDIA GROUP

GRACE ROGERS UNIVERSITY SALES MANAGER

ALISON RAO GRAPHIC DESIGNER

VIKAS NAIR

ADVISING DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS

NANCI HEALY EDITORIAL ADVISER

RACHEL HOLLIDAY SMITH

SENIOR STAFF

news DIAMOND NAGA SIU arts HAILEY NUTHALS features ABIGAIL WEINBERG sports RACHEL RUECKER copy ZOE HALL, ANNA YAO

DEPUTY STAFF

news ABRAHAM GROSS investigative news LEXI FAUNCE features ANKITA BHANOT beauty & style GABRIELLA BOWER dining TAYLOR ROGERS film ETHAN SAPIENZA entertainment JORDAN REYNOLDS music GILCHRIST GREEN theater/books ALLI PIERSON abroad ANNE CRUZ

EDITORS-AT-LARGE

HANNAH SHULMAN, ZACH MARTIN, THOMAS DEVLIN, ALANNA BAYARIN About WSN: Washington Square News (ISSN 15499389) is the student newspaper of New York University. WSN is published in print on Mondays and throughout the week online during NYU’s academic year, except for university holidays, vacations and exam periods.

Corrections: WSN is committed to accurate reporting. When we make errors, we do our best to correct them as quickly as possible. If you believe we have erred, contact the managing editors at managing@nyunews.com or at 212.998.4302.

copy QIANQIAN LI

OPINION PAGE opinion editor

EMILY FONG deputy opinion editors

PARIS MARTINEAU, AKSHAY PRABHUSHANKAR

SEARCH NYU NEWS IN THE APP STORE

STAY UP-TO-DATE