In the filled of creation, we can frequently find the discussion about “Prolific or Unprolific”.
In short, which is better to make a lot even if it’s not high quality or to make high quality one even if it’s not a lot.
Currently, in general, prolific is seems to be thought better way to make.
It is often said that because,
･Many genius was prolific in the past (Picasso, Mozart..)
･Possible to grow up from many feedbacks.
As for my personal opinion, it’s depend on person in terms of whether a good work can be created or not.
The quality and technical growth of a creator is proportional to the amount of workload and working time.
However it is not proportional to the published amount.
In other words, as long as working same amount or same time, they repeat trial and error, and they get feedback from others.
Actually, I cannot find the relations between amount of production and quality of it from the creators around me.
It’s both advantageous regarding to the making better one.
In terms of getting evaluations and money, the prolific people win overwhelmingly.
For instance, suppose your goal is release your CD from famous label.
That label think about the contract with you considering future merit.
Unless you are seems to make a lot of new song easily, they won’t make contract with you.
Because many of musician pay for the deficit of their 1st work by 2nd or 3ed work.
Then the label want the artist who looks like make the songs quite easily.
So for the label, it is difficult to contract with the artist who make his music with much suffering, even if he bring good song for now.
This tendency accelerated in the Internet era.
The number of Views of YouTube, PV of the blog and so on.
These have also mechanism that brings benefits and rewards to those who continue to make continuously.
Because giving opportunities as equal as possible to the works that many creators are making infinitely is effective for building better platform.
In result, an algorithm that gives the exposure to the work for a moment just after release of it, became mainstream.
After having exposure, some might be buried in other works, other might not.
The important thing is getting light at least for the first moment.
It means at least the moment the artist release something, he attract notice including his past works.
On this thinking way, the most reasonable way to get evaluations and reward is to keep presenting with as short time span as possible.
Historically seeing, the artist who were evaluated after their death are mostly unprolific.
The artist who had fame and wealth while their living are mostly prolific.