BLOG: pictures of matchstick men & me

[indeciSEAN]

Me speaking as me and not as "an insider"...

I think this thread/discussion is going somewhere rather interesting but amidst it all, I keep thinking about one thing: just because Amanda chooses to be honest when someone asks a question, doesn't necessarily mean that the question should've been asked. Eh? Does that make sense?

When someone asked about abortion in Hartford this past November, I was rather surprised. However, I was pleased with how Amanda answered the question and am glad that there's someone out there on stage who is honest, sincere, and is trying hard not to censor themselves.

I think there's a strange thing that's been happening, a line that gets crossed sometimes....Amanda has an unparalleled connection to many fans -- having spent time after numerous shows observing the care, time, and effort to meet with people and hear their stories.......it's not something you see with most artists, but because "she's so open with fans" there's a desire to ask questions which most people would never DARE ask Thom Yorke or Regina Spektor etc.....that, coupled with the weird pedestal Amanda is sometimes put on (as a celebrity/someone onstage/"not a real person"), some people feel forget that there are FEELINGS, there. They see her as this endless well of love and answers but who won't be drained, taxed, humbled, happier, or even hurt after they tell her or ask her some stuff...

Can you imagine having someone say directly to you that they miss your band and don't care about the new record? Or ask about what would (for me) be an incredibly hard-to-speak-of time in my life just because they "want to know"?

My rule of thumb tends to be if I wouldn't ask a friend a certain question, I CERTAINLY wouldn't ask an acquaintance/stranger -- and sure, there are people who have different boundaries than myself and maybe would ask a friend something so bluntly, I just wonder where most of you would draw the line and why?

By the by, I'm not trying to stifle your open-ness with Amanda and I don't imagine anyone who is way out of line would really care what my opinion was anyway, but I can't help but pipe up...I think it's important to keep in mind that Amanda is "in the trenches" interacting with fans because she's a person too. She knows many of you by your first name, she cares when she hears about something bad happening to you (or is happy if she hears something likewise positive) -- just because she's got a record in stores or a video on YouTube or a nifty famous boyfriend or whatever attributes people start disaccociating people as "real," doesn't mean that she's a robot......

Though in all fairness -- with the amount of hours in a day that woman works, I sometimes wonder if maybe she is. 

[Jesse]

Sean: I am in 100% aggreement with you.

I have talked about this very problem with a few people in the past, arguing a more conservative opinion vs the 'she's open so it's okay' side.

but I love Yoshiki dearly, and when I saw all of the hit-and-run responses, I had to argue for the other side. The lines are definitely blurry, and I see the fact that they are being... abused? Maybe the wrong word. But either way, the fact that Yoshiki was the wrongplacewrongtime victim was shitty.

[Wednesday Friday]

Well said, Sean. And it's good to remember that no matter how open Amanda is about her personal life, there is always a difference between choosing to divulge personal information about yourself of your own volition, and being directly asked something personal by someone who assumes they have a right to such information. But at the same time, the internet is not a very confronting space, questions can easily be ignored. The boundaries of inappropriateness and decorum are often lower than in real life, which doesn't mean they should be disregarded completely, of course.

Basically I think this comes back to everyone remembering that "Amanda Palmer is Not Your Bitch". 

[yosmark]

I think this thread/discussion is going somewhere rather interesting but amidst it all, I keep thinking about one thing: just because Amanda chooses to be honest when someone asks a question, doesn't necessarily mean that the question should've been asked. Eh? Does that make sense?

Yes, and the question can be easily ignored, while I understand the question, was very unpleasant I still believe she can just skip it, just like that. As much as I would like to hear her answer there is no need to really answer my question, she doesn't owe me anything, nor she works for me (and I want to make clear that the fan relationship can't be spoken here because well ... this is a personal question not a "when will you play battered bride" question), she is a human being who I respect & who's opinion is important to me that's why I am interested on her thoughts.

I have dealt with this topic lately, one of my best friends was involved in a similar situation, he told me how hard everything was, then one day this girl asks me (somehow the same question), I said I didn't know what to answer, I didn't have any reference at the moment nor even an idea of what I would be actually doing so yeah ... I was looking to see what would she do.

I believe I didn't ask the question it in a disrespectful way & I wasn't trying to be mean in anyway.

btw, I <3 Jessee.

[Musings]

I was trying to think about how I would feel if the person who posed the question was someone other than yosmark, who I know and love.

But the thing is, it is yosmark.  Someone who has been a fan and a large part of the community for a long fucking time.  And that doesn't mean that Amanda owes him anything, it means that he knows how Amanda operates in public spaces.  It means that he knows that she talks openly about abortion and peeing on sticks and long vaginas and being depressed and being in love and sometimes uses personal questions like this as openings for public exploration of topics that mean a lot to a lot of people.  He's not just some random asshole, if he had a question, he has a thoughtful reason behind it.  And even though it was phrased poorly, maybe due to yosmark writing in a 2nd language, the idea of a woman debating having a child while having a demanding career is not exactly a new one.

Regina Spektor doesn't get asked these questions because Regina is a pretty private person.  Most people don't get asked these questions in public because most people are more private than Amanda.  Amanda invites us in to a lot of private places and if some places are too private, then that's something good to know, but she very rarely says "OH NO YOU DIDN'T" and she goes ahead and answers those questions.  And if the next blog she writes is about how she wonders if she is too public a person because she gets asked some very private questions, then we know that this is a "OH NO YOU DIDN'T" moment.  Or if she doesn't answer it, we know she just doesn't want to deal with it.  And so we learn a boundary.

It's really hard to guess what someone's emotional and private/public boundaries are and what they find offensive versus not, unless they tell you.

[VipersGratitude]

I'm still waiting for the blog that contains a youtube link to an interpretation of Sarah Silverman's "I'm fucking Matt Damon" - come on...its too perfect!

[indeciSEAN]

I think this thread/discussion is going somewhere rather interesting but amidst it all, I keep thinking about one thing: just because Amanda chooses to be honest when someone asks a question, doesn't necessarily mean that the question should've been asked. Eh? Does that make sense?

Yes, and the question can be easily ignored, while I understand the question, was very unpleasant I still believe she can just skip it, just like that.

Correct.
BUT, I think maybe some of the point of my post is getting lost if you think someone can truly just "skip it" if they don't wish to answer. That was my point. I've really never seen Amanda not want to answer a question. Hell, this past tour someone asked during "Ask Amanda" if she and Neil were together -- something that intentionally wasn't public, yet -- and she (quickly) answered honestly, and moved on.......fast, but she didn't skip it, and this was when they were still being very quiet about their relationship.

That comparison made, a lot of what I was trying to say in my previous post is that while Amanda COULD chose to skip things, and doesn't seem to, that doesn't always mean it was right to ask -- at least it doesn't mean that to me -- and it most certainly doesn't mean that said questions don't resonate, whether she wants to skip it or not.

I'm a pretty private person -- VERY private in comparison to AFP -- but that doesn't change the common thread which resonates through so many of us, just because we're humans.......we don't just "forget" shit, and if 100 people say something incredibly flattering but 1 says we suck, we tend to get caught up on that asshole. Not that I expect everyone to follow every damned tweet Amanda makes, but you can tell from here shit does resonate with her, unfortunately even the negative...

[Musings]

But I think the idea behind yosmark's line isn't "Should we use Amanda as our personal punching bag and forget she is a human being because she can avoid those places where we say mean things about her?" but rather "Should very personal questions be asked of Amanda if we know that she can avoid them if she doesn't want to answer?"

Obviously the answer to the first is no.

The second... Amanda chooses to answer personal questions, chooses to have personal Twitter updates, chooses to make her blog at least appear personal, although I'm sure there are plenty of things she doesn't write about.  She wants that connection, she takes those actions.

I'm sure what she realizes (and the reason she answers the questions) and most people realize that when they ask a question like "Did you have an abortion?" is that they're not looking to be mean or selfish or gossipy but that they are looking to find a connection.  It's a very different flavor than "OMGZ when are the DD getting back together because I miss all the face paint?"

[indeciSEAN]

I was trying to think about how I would feel if the person who posed the question was someone other than yosmark, who I know and love.

I thought about this, too. And truth is, I think if it was most anyone aside from a dozen or so of the uber-well-known here on The Box they would've gotten attacked and I would've had a few "reported post" e-mails hit my inbox.

He's not just some random asshole, if he had a question, he has a thoughtful reason behind it.  And even though it was phrased poorly, maybe due to yosmark writing in a 2nd language, the idea of a woman debating having a child while having a demanding career is not exactly a new one.

Couldn't agree more, on all fronts.

Regina Spektor doesn't get asked these questions because Regina is a pretty private person. Most people don't get asked these questions in public because most people are more private than Amanda. 

There's a quote in the new Hypebot interview with Amanda that stuck out to me...(based on the comments) it seems as though it's stuck out to others as well. The quote: "I simply feel blessed that I’m an emotional exhibitionist right around the time is seems to be expected and en vogue."

That speaks volumes. On all of this. It doesn't speak for her on this particular matter, but I have it mind as I say the following:

There's no one like, Amanda. Period. And I know that, of course I know that...but in the realm of performers, it's weird to me just how truly alone she is in some ways but how expected to play by the rules she is in others...Trent Reznor, Michael Jackson^, Regina, Billy Corgan, Roger Waters, Paul McCartney, Lady GaGa (YES, Lady fucking GaGa) all are here *motions to the right* and Amanda is here *motions to the left*...

Despite the fact they're all incredibly different people, I don't feel bad lumping Regina in with Tori or lumping Gerard Way in with Matt Bellamy -- make whatever comparison in that vain you'd like to make because at the end of the day, bottom line, those people DO have a lot in common at least in regards to their role as the "rock star"; They perform, follow the standard music industry formula (music videos, mailing lists, tours, Letterman), and are pretty private save for an interview now and then or a weird fan encounter that gets thrown up on YouTube. But the music industry formula is starting to try and tell people that they have to be more reachable........and it's strange.

In one of the forty or fifty tech/music industry blogs I was reading over the past week, someone brought something up I find really important to reiterate here (even though I can't find it to send you right to the source)...as Amanda said, it's en vogue right now to be open with your public, with your fans. BUT, that's going to be less and less appealing to the majority of the public with every every tweet or signing or awkward "how can we make money off making this person accessible" scheme. Someone or something is going to come along and bowl over this whole "man of the people thing" and NOT be on all of the socials and not be meeting fans...
Then? That too will be swallowed up by something, though something with more heart. It's cyclical, it has been since the mid 20th century when rock music first start boiling up into popular culture.......look at the 80s popular music vs the underground and look how things shifted in the early 90s. Remember your punk/new wave/hair metal/terrible pop history? And then indie/alternative/grunge? Now take 2 seconds and think about how that burned off and we got Puff Daddy and those ridiculous hip hop videos and "rock" bands like Limp Bizkit, for a few years...

People are already getting over the "everyone should be more available" thing...look at the nonsense going on at Trent Reznor's Twitter...oh, wait, you can't, he deleted it. People didn't like public-Trent/happy-Trent. It was just about two months ago he was commenting on how Twitter was so free of nastiness and was such a positive environment. And THIS quickly, it became a place he felt he couldn't use anymore, and most certainly didn't want to open up on.

...do I think Amanda will fall into that same trap? No. But I keep in mind a lot of the snowballing that's happening when it comes to her luster comes from the outside putting a light and a magnifying glass on her and not necessarily Amanda kicking and screaming wanting attention.

^ You could call me out on having MJ in that list, but really, I think the level of superstardom he reached just exponentially made his "private life" that much more public and weird -- not that he himself was somehow comparatively as public as Amanda just because people tried their damnedest to bring the man (vs the performer) to light...

Amanda invites us in to a lot of private places and if some places are too private, then that's something good to know, but she very rarely says "OH NO YOU DIDN'T" and she goes ahead and answers those questions.  And if the next blog she writes is about how she wonders if she is too public a person because she gets asked some very private questions, then we know that this is a "OH NO YOU DIDN'T" moment.  Or if she doesn't answer it, we know she just doesn't want to deal with it.  And so we learn a boundary.

This feels creepily like a "well did you see what she was wearing?!" statement and though I'm sure that's not your intention it just rubs me the wrong way.

At the end of the day, I think the amount of good done by the questions Amanda answers honestly/how connected and open to the fans she is > the couple of "inappropriate" questions she gets every now and then. If it didn't weigh out that way, I'd imagine she'd close up a bit. Maybe more. And I'd imagine it'd be quite clear the dynamic had changed...

I know with one other artist I've worked with, there came a time when they HAD to start getting more private. Some of the fans got creepy, people always want to know that their families and whatnot are going to be safe, and the dynamic just had to change

Some saw it as a "sellout" move.....it sucked. And still sucks, how entitled some people are, I mean.

But what was most troublesome is just how many people said shit like "well that's what you get for being famous" or "well we didn't know there was a boundary because it never seemed like there was, jeez!"

It's really hard to guess what someone's emotional and private/public boundaries are and what they find offensive versus not, unless they tell you.

Again, I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time not seeing this as another "she's asking for it" statement.

[Musings]

I knew I was going to pay for that last line, and I thought about editing it out, but I didn't.  It's still a bit unclear so let me clarify.

Let me make this clear: this is not about stalking or physical contact or even what tracks should be on the next album.  I'm not really trying to defend rapists here.

This is purely about communication, about questions and answers.  Maybe a bit about the fan-artist relationship.

I would agree with you, probably, that the Internet is makes everyone a bit more ballsier and intimate than they would be otherwise.  I mean, if I know what Amanda ate for lunch on Twitter, is that the same thing as eating lunch with her?  Obviously not, but there are people who would take it there.

It's an important distinction to make that reading everything about a person's life is not the same as knowing them, or being their friend, even.

Amanda changes the fan-artist relationship.  She gives fans more than any other artist I know of, in terms of control and ownership and recognition in their artwork, their thoughts, answering questions, making connections.  That change in relationship is helpful for her, because it means that fans feel personal connection in her success as well, and they want her to succeed in what she does.  When that personal connection changes to entitlement, that's bad news, but I think (hope) most people get that boundary.  She is a human, we do not own her, go forth and do your own yoga, etc., etc.

I'm not saying she deserves questions that hurt her feelings, or encroaches on material that she thinks too private to share.

I'm saying that if such a question is asked, one that is right on the edge of a boundary, like I think this one is, and it is asked in good intentions, then the person asking the question can't always be expected to know that they have crossed a boundary, especially when it is close to material she has discussed before.  This particular question is not so far off the path of already established questions that it should be considered a huge transgression.  We're not mindreaders. 

---
As a side note, I am unsure whether to be impressed that you FOOTNOTED a post with MJ, or just to call you a nerd.

[Hayley Fiasco!]

Admittingly, I've skimmed through some posts here. I'm not interested in contributing to the argument/disagreement but I do have something to contribute in terms of the gist of what's going on, to contribute to the discussion.


Amanda has said many times that she does not want to have children (specifically at the moment she was asked, whenever she's been asked, and she has been asked many times - in the MANYYYY "Ask Amanda" question sessions & elsewhere. A simple search for "ask amanda" on youtube will yield at least 5 of these clips).

Specifically, Amanda has said that having a child would interrupt her plans for touring, being spontaneous and carefree in her career. That you can't really survive a tour bus (touring situation) with a baby on board. Beth has joked about not wanting to change diapers. Amanda has talked about abortion at length defending Oasis and defending her stance on the topic. She's talked about her experience very candidly - though briefly - in both her blog and at a European date of her solo tour when someone directly asked her about whether or not Oasis was true during an "Ask Amanda" pause in her show with the Danger Ensemble (again, just go through youtube and you can find this clip. If I recall correctly, it was posted MONTHS before Amanda told the world her personal connection to Oasis in her blog in response to the UK/London Radio ban).


Anyway, my point is, Amanda has already answered the question posed by Yosmark. She answered it in different contexts, at different points in time.

No, she does not want children at this very moment. Yes it will interfere with her career. That's partly why.


Has Amanda recently talked about pregnancy scares? Hardly, though I'm sure this isn't the first time she's blogged about it. Fuck, a month ago she blogged about having a kidney infection because she did urinate after having sex, she's blogged about her period at length and the details of forgetting to take a sponge out of her vagina.

Amanda tells stories. Amanda answers questions. Amanda lifts the veil and breaks the fourth wall.

Why people are acting like Yosmark is ENCOURAGING an abortion I don't understand. Amanda sets her self up for questions like that. Whether or not it was eloquently phrased, regardless of who asked the question, Amanda has opened the door for questions like that to be seriously asked.

So you don't like it? Okay then don't read this thread to see if Amanda replies or not.

[شفشاون]

Ask Amanda. That is the prevailing mood of her relationship with fans. Adjusting the description of someone's perception of that reality to match the very appropriately, most maligned rape defense is... well, the first boundary I have seen clearly crossed. I find the negativity toward Yoshi to be a little inappropriate and offensive, but I understand the psychological response. I can see how it would prompt responses that function on that emotional platform. Now, however, that cognition has come into play, I can't see how anything Musings has said is a letter short of incontrovertible.

That and... has Amanda expressed feelings of having been offended?

[yosmark]

He's not just some random asshole, if he had a question, he has a thoughtful reason behind it.  And even though it was phrased poorly, maybe due to yosmark writing in a 2nd language, the idea of a woman debating having a child while having a demanding career is not exactly a new one.

While this is not me playng the "this is my second language card", it is hard sometimes to realize of one's mistakes when said mistakes are not grammar mistakes; I didn't realize from the beginning that the composition of the question itself was plain wrong. You need to be caring about the way you say things, that's a very important thing even if talking with your best friend and well (again) I didn't realize about my mistake(s).

There's a problem and there will always be problems when "someone crossses the line", in every relationship and it's is harder when adressed to someone who you don't know in the "traditional way", I think I know (if you can call this "knowing someone"... ¿e-knowing someone?) her from blogs, twitts and everyother media that she uses to be in touch with her fans.

Being famous doesn't obligate you to be open in every aspect of your life, you still need that privacy that space for yourself, it is hard to know where it is. If this is one of the "OH NO YOU DIDN'T" questions well, I think she will let us know.

Hayley, I should have looked up for any of those in the beginning, to be honest, the audio sometimes it's fucked up or the video itself is just moving all shaky. Though I will google it, if any as you said she has already answered to the same question but in different contexts but oh well.

At the end of the day, I think the amount of good done by the questions Amanda answers honestly/how connected and open to the fans she is > the couple of "inappropriate" questions she gets every now and then. If it didn't weigh out that way, I'd imagine she'd close up a bit. Maybe more. And I'd imagine it'd be quite clear the dynamic had changed...

And this somehow could feed the positive and negative aspects of this, fans sharing their suicide stories with her, fans asking about the musical project itself or fans asking rather personal questions. I really hope this dynamic doesn't change, it's easy to find new music you like and everything but this type of "connection" is the one that makes it a great experience.

[virtual~mary]

great conversation (go, yosh) and amanda’s current interview series on hypebot covers some of her views on the artist/fan relationship "nowadays."

establishing our own boundaries personally (and professionally) is each of our responsibilities. with respect to each others’, we must first be aware of them in order to choose whether we'll honor them to the relationship’s advantage or dismiss them at the relationship’s peril.

in a personal relationship, when someone fails (consciously or unconsciously) to establish and maintain boundaries, there are inherent risks and consequences. Enmeshment is one and it can lead to obsession, resentment, and entitlement (among other things) as both parties go about getting their needs met. because there's subjectivity in boundary establishment, we all make our choices. sometimes we don’t like the consequences of a choice and we have to re-establish a boundary or establish it for the first time (if we're mostly flying by the seats of our pants) in a given relationship.

in a public relationship (performer/audience), it’s the same thing at the macro level. as musings, hayley and amanda herself have pointed out; amanda actively blurs “the lines” and wants to stay as connected as possible to her fans (more possibilities for this than ever before in history), which for her includes sharing what others might consider more personal details. she encourages the asking of personal questions in order to both maintain the connection and to ignite a wider discussion. she has done this to her advantage. that fans are generally going to feel more comfortable in this “prevailing” environment is (I agree with nyyorkskyyikwawks) a given.

on the disadvantages side, there will be some who start to feel enmeshed (not you, yosh) as a consequence of this kind of openness on amanda’s part and entitled (even though it’s been clearly stated that afp is not your bitch) due to a relative lack of emotional development (boundary problems of their own) and/or the inability/lack of desire to keep up with the stream of afp information available for public consumption.

amanda herself acknowledges how much she trusts her fans, so my guess is that these folks are few and far between (or they manage to fall into the innocuous category). and, as sean pointed out, the pros currently outweigh the cons.

now on to the really important part of my post:

I'm still waiting for the blog that contains a youtube link to an interpretation of Sarah Silverman's "I'm fucking Matt Damon" - come on...its too perfect!

this is so perfect it’s sick and neil gaiman has the same number of syllables as matt daimon.

Here’s the song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLG3S5WzHig

[شفشاون]

establishing our own boundaries personally (and professionally) is each of our responsibilities. with respect to each others’, we must first be aware of them in order to choose whether we'll honor them to the relationship’s advantage or dismiss them at the relationship’s peril.

Well put and absolutely relevant to the Yoshi situation.