Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Amanda Palmer]

new blog
why i am not afraid to take your money, by amanda fucking palmer
read it at amandapalmer.net (or here on myspace)

(please be sure to share this with your friends, on your Twitter, on your Facebook, etc...you can user the shortened URL http://bit.ly/blog092909 if that'll help)

[guuurrrrrllltakeiteasy]

Gurl, I got cho back.

[Shanneeen]

so i've already posted this on the blog but i just feel like putting it here too..
i said..
AMEN. you're so honest about why you do what you do. this makes you my hero.. you have no shame in telling the truth. thank you. fuck the critics that don't see what you're doing for artists. i love that you stand up for whats right and you don't have your fans follow you blindly. i love you and what you're doing for artists.

[Rob]

Amen girl. 

Get what you got coming to you.

take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the [artist] is worth [her] keep.  Mathew 10:10 (sort of)
 

[Bad Kitty]

amen.. aman..da.

da da da.



cut out the meddling middlemen! we don't need no stinkin middles! (unless we're talking bellies.. in which case, yay middles!)

*throws cash*

[Kovacs]

First off, I completely agree with the asking fans for money. As a music lover, I see it everywhere, and encourage it. I love it. Music is getting more personal, more intimate. The era of the minstril is returning. I fully support everything you do in these matters. That being said, the rest is a devil's advocate position, with the intention of helping you gather information to perfect the new model, if the information is needed.



The auctions bothered me, and it took me a while to figure out why. Eventually I realized I just didn't like the idea of people paying THAT much money for those things. That crosses a line in my book (a line in that I would question their priorities). Yes, that's a judgment, and yes, people can do what they want with their money. They weren't forced. This is a purely personal tastes thing, and once I realized that I forgot about any hangups.

But.

Putting the auctions in terms of the rest of the blog, this isn't asking every fan for money (a 10-dollar-entry webcast would be that, which I highly encourage you to do). These auctions profit off of the fanatic and not the fan.

This is 10-20 people spending a whole lot of money. And they adore you. They will do things for you and probably not necessarily realize the repercussions. This is not your fault or responsibility (debateable for some people, though that's a moral grey area), but it is what is happening.

Amanda, asking the fans for money its something that is true, and everyone will have to get used to it if they continue to sample an artists content for free. I think you have been extremely astute in predicting this.

In these auctions, specifically, you're profiting off of the fanatics, tapping into (what I percieve as) a personal vulnerability in your fan base, their adoration. Credit where credit is due, you deserve this adoration, I've never seen an artist give so much back.

But, it borders exploitation, despite them doing it willingly. You say that Ticketmaster, Roadrunner, etc have been "shamelessly raping both fan and artist for years". Be careful, these auctions are bordering on comparable.



Do you want to pave the way in new ways to ask the fans for money, or profit from the fanatic?

[abruptdogma]

i would rather give you my money than labels. nuff said.

[Haushinka]

Kovacs already put into words what I wanted to say.

[slyvia k]

I partially agree with Kovacs post, but then again, I'm not really keen on the distinction between fan and fanatics. This makes them look like mentally ill people.
I personally wouldn't buy Amanda's used dildo for a shitload of money, but I doubt anyone has gone bankrupt for having bought it. I think they just can afford it, and see it as just another way of supporting Amanda. IMO they're well aware of what they're doing, and not a bunch of sheeps that Amanda might risk 'exploiting'.

[Orlagh]

I do see what you mean Kovacs. However, 'the fanatics', as you call them, who buy these items are the people to whom these items mean the most. While they do on occasion end up spending a lot of money on them, that is their call in securing the item that they want so badly. These things are one-off and will end up with one-off price tags. Everyone who bids is consenting, knows what they are getting and to whom there money is going. I don't think you can really criticize as long as all parties are happy.

In terms of a paid entry webcast. I personally don't have a bank account, and wouldn't necesssarily be able to afford to pay entry at the time of the webcast and I assume the situation would be the same for many fans. While I have saved and bought CDs, tshirts, posters etc. in the past. I don't feel it would be right to only allow those with money to view content like a webcast. Particularly as it is free to create and online, it would be like a fee for following AFP on twitter. That, and the admin for something like that would be a bitch.


In any case, I would alway rather know that all profit is going directly to AFP and those who matter and work hard. Patronage is how music is to survive. As a fan, I feel quite lucky that our Amanda has chosen to be one of very few spearheading this initiative (nakedly with ukulele case in tow)...  

[MeAndMyCharms]

I can see where Kovacs is coming from, sort of, but I don't agree that what Amanda is doing is exploiting anybody. Or even comes close to it. I think more credit needs to be given to the people that have taken part in these auctions and purchased whatever items took their fancy. I personally haven't, but I would probably be slightly offended if I had, and was then lumped as a crazy fanatic.
I think a lot of people will do this, not because they are crazy weirdos, but because this is their way of saying thanks and giving something back, and getting a little piece of their favourite musician in return. I used the webcast to get my WKAP dvd for $25. Not because I really wanted the signature or anything, but because I knew that Amanda would benefit much more from me buying that one rather than the incredibly cheap non-signed version.

Pink recently did a string of 50 billion shows in Australia, and the price of her merchandise was off the charts. I heard to get a hoodie it was about $170, and the cheapest tickets to see her were no less than $100. Nobody accused her of exploiting fans or taking advantage of fanatics. It was just expected.
The only difference I see is Pink wasn't standing behind that merch table, taking the cash personally from everybody.

I guess I just find the criticism really unfair. It's not very often you get to see an amazing artist for only about $30. Plus on top of that, all the free shows and Pirate and/or Ninja gatherings, whatever the hell they are called (you know, those things with the ukes, cakes and signings), that come along in between shows.
Having things like these auctions, where a small select group of people who have the $$ and are willing to part with it for the cause, will continue to help keep future ticket and merch prices down.

I'm all for embracing this kind of shit. I hope the criticism doesn't make Amanda think twice before doing random things like this again.

Fuck that.

[Musings]

First of all, I kind of missed blogs like this.

The blogs of late have been... not soulless, but not particularly challenging or emotionally grabbing, either, like the first blogs were.  Not things I thought about after reading.

I think that's the difference between a webcast that is auction-based and a webcast that is not.  One is more about Amanda and the other is more about Amanda selling things.  I was pretty utterly bored with the other webcast (I fastforwarded and watched bits and pieces, afterwards) until goats came into the picture because that's Amanda.

Which is in some ways an unfair distinction to make, because how often do we get to experience an artist outside of selling things?  Most people sell CDs and have concerts, and that's it.  But that's probably my main issue with the webcasts -- when it starts feeling like a business, I go and watch something else instead.

While I understand Kovacs's stance about fanatics and explotation, what makes a fan who buys x for however much money different than a fan who pays, yes, exorbitant prices for front seat tickets or even travels far to go.  I value certain things, and quite honestly, my pride wouldn't allow me to pay a higher price for something I buy from a store just because a rockstar once owned it or even signed it.  Any rockstar.  Any other person.  I'd rather donate money directly (if I had it), buy art and the experience of art, buy merch -- but the idea that whatever wine bottle is so much more amazing because Amanda once drank out of it -- no way. 

It really depends why people are buying what they are buying.  Are they buying because ZOMG AMANDA HELD IT IN HER HANDS?  That's the basis of all celebrity memoribilia, isn't it, whether it's a signed CD or a signed football?  And while I don't particularly understand it, it's not my place to judge the people who have enough money to do it.  I buy other things that they wouldn't necessarily buy, because I place a higher value on them. 

There's a freedom of choice.  Unless these are all kids with their parents' credit cards or addicted shopaholics, they can do what they want.  We should probably have an informal poll to see how much people regret their purchases a few days after the webcast (but I'm sure it's no more or less than any other impulse/large random buy).

And it's less exploitation than Roadrunner or Ticketmaster because at least you know, ok, I am paying exactly for this item, and all money is going to this person.  Instead of "I am paying for this item + these fees + these fees" and "where is the money going again?"

And if they are buying because, like in the NPR sense, they are donating and they happen to get this cool item that comes along, that's awesome.  And I honestly don't know which of these things are happening, although I pretty much guarantee that anyone who is pressed on it will give you the last answer.

edit: Kovacs, I just reread what you wrote and realized I didn't exactly address what you said at all, in terms of the paying $10 to see the webcast as opposed to the few people paying lots of money.  Let me think a bit.

[stallionbreaker]

I agree with bits and pieces of what each of you has said so far.

I think that when it comes down to TALKING about money and how much was made from whatever, it needs to be done. When Amanda says "I made roughly $10,000 on my last webcast," I think, "Fuck yeah you did. Right on!" I know that before Amanda started talking about it and drawing attention to it, I didn't know how artists got (or didn't get) their money, and I assumed it all shook out in the end. Now I do pay attention to where I'm getting things, and I'm happy to donate what I can to artists I enjoy especially if they ASK for donations. I think the asking is necessary at this point because it might not occur to people attending that they could give money, as someone in the comments on the blog page said, to say "Do it again."

Regarding the webcast auctions, ultimately we don't know who the people are who bid on the items, or the story of why they've chosen to bid on whatever it is for whatever they're willing to pay. That leaves me in no position to judge them just because I might not make the same choices. I'm glad they're willing and able to support Amanda in a way that I don't have the money to do. I really LIKE that there is no set price on the webcast items or the ninja gigs or &c so that people can give as they can. I would gladly throw $10 or more into the virtual wine glass for a webcast, but I also understand that there are people who are not in a position to do so. One of the reasons I don't bid on the items is that I don't really want the items themselves. I'm not big on stuff or on autographs or on having something that was touched/nommed/deep throated by someone I admire. What I'm big on is connection, interaction, and performance. I like feeling like I've spent the evening hanging out with Amanda, Beth, and [several hundred] other people of similar mind.

As an aside, I feel that Amanda's doing her part to look out for us, as she is willing to do things like make a show 16+ instead of 18+, or like keeping ticket prices FAR lower than other artists who have a fanbase(cottage?) the size of hers. She could potentially make more money per ticket (though there's math in there as to how many fewer tickets would sell if you exclude the under 18 set that is too fluid for my brain), but she consciously doesn't do that.

[The Angel Raliel]

any system that is more honestly about giving artists funding is ok by me..... why is it ok for a painter to sell work directly and not a musician or writer? the middle men are rapidly starting to become redundant in this society and it is about time they realised that they can no longer expect artists to give them money for stuff that they no longer really provide!

[Pelle]

While reading all the reactions I was thinking about this; How many times haven't you seen/read/heard about an item of a (once famous now deceased) artist, which is sold for way too much money, because of the emotional value?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Natural-Eleca-Guitar-signed-by-eight-legends-of-rock_W0QQitemZ260482327149QQcmdZViewItemQQptZGuitar?hash=item3ca5f4e26d&_trksid=p3286.c0.m144

Most of the time it's someone who knows quite well that the presented item has a high value for fans of said artist.

Now the artist is doing this.

What's the difference once again?

The middlemen. 

[Musings]

Kovacs:

If given the choice, would you worry more about people paying too much on things that you don't understand or people who had to choose between "buying a webcast" of an artist or going to a movie?

I think in one case, people have a lot of money and have a bigger choice -- bid or not bid, bid past a certain amount, view the webcast or not.

In the other case, people still have a choice, but it's more constricted.  It's the choice I make when I decide to go to a concert -- my interest level has to be high enough (pretty high) to overcome the other shit I will miss out on because I spent that money on a concert ticket.

I'm not sure if that's more or less of a gamble for AP, because she has to bet that 1,000 fans who have credit cards and $10 to burn and are available at that time and a high enough interest level will want to see her webcast, as opposed to 1 out of those 2,000 fans or whatever that can watch will have enough money to pay whatever high amount for whatever thing she sells.  Someone who knows more about economics should figure that out.

The paid webcasts would definitely have to be more like shows, maybe more planned and organized, with more advance warning, than the freeform things they are right now -- which for me is the charm of a webcast as opposed to a concert. 

I'm not sure if webcast-for-fee is the better business model -- it probably is, actually, but in terms of worrying about exploitation, I just don't see it. 

[lentower]

webcasts are a lot more green

moving amanda and associates about
(it can be anywhere to just her, to one helper, to a bus load)
is a larger carbon footprint

[Kovacs]

I'm at work, and although our internet policy allows "limited blogging" (huh? really?), I'm not sure this falls under that statment. I'm going to write this very quick, so I apologize if I miss anything or am unclear.

Somewhat Briefly But Not Really:

- In terms of what is going through these peoples heads when purchasing these things, and my understanding of it. Like I said, it's a judgment on my part. I own it. I feel very passionately about "love the art, respect the artist". The artist is a person, treat them as such. Since music seems to be moving towards a more intimate setting overall, this is becoming more important. Even the power imbalance. Treat each other as people. Worship the music, the art, let it fill your life. Do not let your image of the creator of said art do the same thing. What people are paying for crosses this line (this very, very blurry line, especially in this case) in my opinion, in a few examples. I don't see how hero worship (ideally the healthy kind, you could argue) didn't come into play as part of their reason for buying.

Do these auctions encourage that behavior, or not? Can the "I'm not your bitch" statment hold up when on the other hand allowing fans to indulge in such a way? These are questions and not judgments, I want to know what you all think.

- In terms of the paid webcast being exploitation, if you go with that argument, then charging money for anything that isn't currently being charged is exploitation. The idea is a new model, and what I'm trying to discuss. I suggested it because I see it as being much much cleaner and more sustainable than relying on the hardcores to pay large amounts of money for (limited) items. And it would be much more applicable to other artists.

Musings, to answer your question bluntly I wouldn't "worry" about either of those things ( ), but replace "buying a CD" with "buying a webcast" and you'll see my point. The second part of your statment could be applied to virtually anything you would charge for. The idea would to be to make it affordable and fair, and still have the cash head directly to the artist. Instead of providing something for free that relies on hardcores for sustainablility.

- Incidentally, the paid webcast isn't my idea, it's Jack Whites, bundled with a whole concept: http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/07/jack-whites-third-man-records-opens-the-vault-to-subscribers/

Check it out. I'm insanely curious to see the financial rewards.

- Good discussion. Apologies if I've offended, particularly with the use of the word fanatic. Like I said, I feel strongly about giving artists due respect, especially with the wonderful direction music seems to be taking (more personal interaction, which can be easily ruined by people overdoing it, see Tegan and Sara and what they were forced to do regarding their fan base).

[Musings]

I don't think either side is being exploited, I just misread your first post as being, "poor people with lots of money to expend on what I think are stupid purchases" and wanted to point out that if you charge everyone, there would be someone else getting shafted by maybe not being able to watch, who I have a little more sympathy for.

Jack White has an older, and bigger, fan base, no?  I'm not sure.

More later.

[Rob]

Who you callin' old!?

[Musings]

You.   Very directly and intentionally -- you.

[beth of all trades]

- Good discussion. Apologies if I've offended, particularly with the use of the word fanatic. Like I said, I feel strongly about giving artists due respect, especially with the wonderful direction music seems to be taking (more personal interaction, which can be easily ruined by people overdoing it, see Tegan and Sara and what they were forced to do regarding their fan base).

I don't find any of what you've posted offensive, K.  A lot of this I've been thinking about myself, trying to find a balance.  Not ready to actually SAY what I'm thinking (as I'm a tease like that) but I have to ask... what WERE T&S forced to do regarding their fan base?  I'm a new (like, in the past six months) T&S fan and I'm not aware of the history.

[CeeGBee]

AFP Pledge Week.....   


thassallahmsayin...

[RottenTart]

I am so stoked that Amanda posted something pertaining to this subject.

 I agree with a bit of what everyone has to say here.

I was reading a web article that was referencing the auctions she had done, (and the amt of cash that she had grossed) and people were slamming her like mad. Some people were questioning the legitimacy of her being an artist, and saying that if she were a true artist she would be a starving one. Starving?
Wait, what?
Okay, hold up... Why on earth should anyone have to be a starving artist to be a great one?

Since I was 7 I have loved David Bowie (my mom played his records over Cos head phone while I was in the womb, so I was damned from the start). He is my Idol, and never once have I question the legitimacy of him being an artist. I seriously doubt that anyone has ever looked at him and questioned that. In Ventura (close to where I live), there is a girl who plays the Gypsy Violin on Main St. She is insanely good, and I chuck money into her Violin case as she stomps a foot covered in sleigh bells. I love her. If she had a CD I would buy it- the same time I went to Salzers records to pick up my "Pinups" album. Both legitimate artists, and both working hard to make a living, and both getting my money.

Why, when money comes into the picture do we stop seeing the artist as an artist? Why do we feel like we need to question them like we are a part of the Geheime Polizei? Does anyone remember when Left Eye explained that TLC went completely bankrupt while they still had a chart topping record? Who else was stunned by that? Courtney Love, Left Eye, and various other artists that were screwed by the industry. The truth is ugly, and the music business is hard, and we need to support the artists that we love especially when they come directly to us.

If a fan wants to support the artist and buy a signed photo, glass dildo, t-shirt, show ticket, or half eaten turkey sandwich we should be happy(Also, I don't think this falls under fanatic, unless they are stealing things out of Amanda's garbage and looking for locks of hair to pin in the Dresden Dolls shrine that they have comprised out of pictures of Amanda, said garbage, and Broken drum sticks...Though I do understand that there can be a need for balance). We should say, "Hurray! The artist we love isn't being drilled for the money that we give them that will never see!" Look at Post War Trade and how amazing that is. Hand in hand with the musical artist, and the artist fan- I applaud this. Others would be ticked and say that it's copywright infringement, but they are just included in the merch. GENIUS!


Amanda and the Dolls have become part of my life. Not just my record collection, but my life( as many of you fellow Shadowboxers understand they provide songs in the soundtrack to our life). Over six years of my life infact, and I will support Amanda when she gets outrageously wealthy, or if she becomes totally poor and I have to send money orders to her flat in Boston while she bebcasts on a soapbox.

[Tiervexx]

An artist is worth every penny that someone is willing to give them and it is only exploitation if giver is mentally impaired (but if they got intoxicated on their own than it's their fault).

The "Leave a Tip" link is broken for me.  I held shift to disable the pop-up blocker but the window that comes up is blank.  What am I doing wrong?

[Kovacs]

I don't find any of what you've posted offensive, K.  A lot of this I've been thinking about myself, trying to find a balance.  Not ready to actually SAY what I'm thinking (as I'm a tease like that) but I have to ask... what WERE T&S forced to do regarding their fan base?  I'm a new (like, in the past six months) T&S fan and I'm not aware of the history.

This is far from gospel (since I can't remember where I read it, an interview somewhere, blog maybe). It was my understanding they were asked by their label to stop visiting fans after shows, for safety reasons. There was more than one "fight", nothing too serious where anyone was injured, but physical scuffles, instigated by fans. There's a youtube video of someone climbing up on stage to hug one of them. A large dude. Not cool.

This was coupled with them knowingly "taking a step back" compared to how they interacted in the past (hanging out after shows etc). However, they seem to visit fans still in secure ways, which is probably more of a testament to their dedication to their fans than what their label would like.

[Cheddars Cousin]

I was reading a web article that was referencing the auctions she had done, (and the amt of cash that she had grossed) and people were slamming her like mad. Some people were questioning the legitimacy of her being an artist, and saying that if she were a true artist she would be a starving one. Starving?
Wait, what?
Okay, hold up... Why on earth should anyone have to be a starving artist to be a great one?

As long as I'm around, Amanda will never be in danger of being a starving anything.

[The Angel Raliel]

I was reading a web article that was referencing the auctions she had done, (and the amt of cash that she had grossed) and people were slamming her like mad. Some people were questioning the legitimacy of her being an artist, and saying that if she were a true artist she would be a starving one. Starving?
Wait, what?
Okay, hold up... Why on earth should anyone have to be a starving artist to be a great one?

As long as I'm around, Amanda will never be in danger of being a starving anything.

ahhh self sacrifice.......

[Kardemumma]

I don't have a lot to add. People have made some very valid points.
I much prefer giving my money directly to Amanda than wondering about the middle man. I also wouldn't mind going trough a lot of trouble for her, and even if she did have loads of cash I would still get her a place to stay and some food to eat if she ever came to my part of the world. The way she connects with fans is an important part of what makes her special. She's broke, she needs money (to live and to make art) and she's been honest about it. I love that. I'm broke too, but I don't mind coming up with the money for shows, DVD's, t-shirts etc. because I feel I get so much in return.

And I would just like to say that very rarely have I seen a conversation like this on a message board. People actually have things to say and they are saying them in an intelligent way and with respect. What a great community.

[Jo Just Go Nameless]

I don't find any of what you've posted offensive, K.  A lot of this I've been thinking about myself, trying to find a balance.  Not ready to actually SAY what I'm thinking (as I'm a tease like that) but I have to ask... what WERE T&S forced to do regarding their fan base?  I'm a new (like, in the past six months) T&S fan and I'm not aware of the history.

This is far from gospel (since I can't remember where I read it, an interview somewhere, blog maybe). It was my understanding they were asked by their label to stop visiting fans after shows, for safety reasons. There was more than one "fight", nothing too serious where anyone was injured, but physical scuffles, instigated by fans. There's a youtube video of someone climbing up on stage to hug one of them. A large dude. Not cool.

This was coupled with them knowingly "taking a step back" compared to how they interacted in the past (hanging out after shows etc). However, they seem to visit fans still in secure ways, which is probably more of a testament to their dedication to their fans than what their label would like.

From my knowledge, I am pretty sure this is true. On the tour for The Con, we waited outside in the cold in hope of getting my gf's poster signed and all the band/support acts came out and Tegan and Sara actually got smuggled out into the tour bus and drove away. At the time I thought it was pretty rude, as there were only a handful of people waiting outside and one of the band could have just told them that the girls weren't going to be coming out to sign, instead of hanging out, seeing them and letting them still stand out in the cold. Although then I was made aware that they were told NOT to come out because it wasn't safe for them. Which is scary to think that their own fans would be a threat to them. They do seem to meet fans before shows now more often, which means the hardcore that queue for hours get to say hey and it weeds out most of the idiots who may get drunk and invade space/cause fights etc.

[ylferb]

There's not a huge amount I can add to this, as people have replied pretty thoroughly! Again, as people have already said, the cutting-out of the middle man means that I'm willing to give my money - I can see that it's going straight to Amanda and not to this person and that person until it's finally cut down to a tiny percentage of what it was and is finally passed on to the person I wanted to give it to in the first place.

I don't mind paying for art, especially art that has had such a profound effect on my life. Amanda gives back to us a personal connection, interaction and a far more intimate experience than most artists out there. We see how the merchandise develops - god, we're given the chance to design it ourselves! For everything we give, the way I see it, we receive as well. And I'd rather spend my money on merchandise and music and art for someone I respect and admire, than to a middleman somewhere else because the artist hasn't asked directly and there isn't a way to give money directly, or to someone who I feel isn't going to give back and doesn't have the time for the individual fans (and instead just vaguely - and occasionally - addresses with the collective 'fanbase' as a whole).

Okay, so I can't afford to bid at the webcasts, but again am not going to criticise those who can. It's a personal choice. Amanda asks directly, and people give directly. Nobody's being conned, nobody's having to pay ridiculous charges to websites on top of the money they're giving. Besides, I'd rather pay less for a concert ticket and be able to go even when I have an extreme lack of money and am living on a student budget - and then, if I dig some money out from somewhere, donate and/or buy merchandise in my own time, when I CAN afford it - than not be able to go to a gig at all because it's £50 a ticket which is far too much for me to afford to spend in one go. The low ticket prices meant I could go to all of the recent gigs in London AND buy merchandise, because Amanda keeps her prices down and finds other ways for us to support her. I'd rather it were that way, personally. Oh, and, y'know, have several hugs and exchange words with her after every show. Someone said on the blog comments that Amanda doesn't give back. I think the very fact that right now she's READING all the comments would suggest otherwise...personally, I feel that we get far more back than we give. And at the same time, it doesn't feel like we're paying for her to give it back; we're giving of our own free will AFTER AFP has worked so damned hard to make each one of us feel connected.

So yes, I've probably repeated everything everyone else has said, but I think what I'm TRYING to say here is AMEN, Amanda. Keep doing what you do, keep giving as much as you do, because it's fantastic, and I will happily give as much back as I can. =)

[JohnnyDBBUK]

I heard from a UK Cabaret performer that you charge £10000 a show
Is this true? Only interested as I want to book you (and brian hopefully) for the possible 2010
(this is about 9000 pounds out of my savings budget ) so can you possibly work a sliding scale like the A-team did?

[also the only thing I would pay Lady gaga to do would be place a cyanide pill under her tongue]

[Musings]

- In terms of what is going through these peoples heads when purchasing these things, and my understanding of it. Like I said, it's a judgment on my part. I own it. I feel very passionately about "love the art, respect the artist". The artist is a person, treat them as such. Since music seems to be moving towards a more intimate setting overall, this is becoming more important. Even the power imbalance. Treat each other as people. Worship the music, the art, let it fill your life. Do not let your image of the creator of said art do the same thing. What people are paying for crosses this line (this very, very blurry line, especially in this case) in my opinion, in a few examples. I don't see how hero worship (ideally the healthy kind, you could argue) didn't come into play as part of their reason for buying.

Do these auctions encourage that behavior, or not? Can the "I'm not your bitch" statment hold up when on the other hand allowing fans to indulge in such a way? These are questions and not judgments, I want to know what you all think.

This is your main point, right?

Which was made... I don't know, at the beginning of my time on the SBx, pre-Amanda solo, pre-WKAP, pre-Twitter.  Again and again and again.

I know the feeling.  We've discussed the feeling.  And I really think it's partially a shift in you, less than a shift in Amanda's methods.  Amanda always blogged, always put herself out there in terms of the Ask Amanda questions, and we were let a lot more into her head than most other artists -- actually any other artist that I know of.  I remember talking about what I knew of Amanda to someone a while ago, her feelings about Madonna on some blog, and they were like, "Dude, are you like good friends with her or something?"  And I'm not, and I can make that distinction, but she encourages it a lot, and now she has even more platforms, in terms of Twitter and webcasts to encourage that feeling.  There are probably things I know about her that I don't know about some of the people I see day to day.

I think the "hardcores" as you call them, have always existed, will always exist (whether there are web auctions or not), and do exist in many forms.  And there are plenty of people, here, even, who consider Amanda a hero, and given the finances, would have bidded on some more personal items.  Or they show it in other ways -- that maybe you and I would deem a more appropriate expression of fan but still at the core have that same feeling.  And, really, so what?  There are worst people in the world to consider heroes, no?  Worse people to idolize and get emotionally attached to?

And I don't think, although it's been a worry, that the feelings of attachment have converted into feelings of entitlement, in most cases, and when they have, Amanda has dealt with it well.  Either that or Amanda, through the webcasts and the Twittering and touring and loving fan art and meeting after concerts and just her overall overwhelming presence everywhere is already fulfilling what even the hardcores feel entitled to.

[Pope Totalfrog]

 
A Fairy Tale.
Once upon a time musicians and artists relied on patrons to survive - they worked very hard, they sold their work to people who appreciated it, created commissions for those who could afford it and for centuries made an infinite amount of art.

Then one day someone saw an opportunity. They went to the artists and the musicians and said "We can help you." The artists, who were quite frankly, sick and tired of trudging all over town promoting themselves thought it was a brilliant idea. They could sit back and create while these helpful entities went out and did all the trudging for them.

What the artists didn't realise was that these were not helpful entities. These were evil, greedy souls who saw an opportunity - not to help artists but to make an absolute fortune for themselves. They could not create, they were born without hearts and therefore had no imagination - it also meant that they felt no guilt making all of their money from the hard work of others.
 
No amount of money however large could satisfy them. Before the artists were happy to create and feed themselves - they were now pushed by the evil greeds to do more and more for less and less. Until one day the artists were given nothing at all.  The greeds still forced them to create but they no longer felt they had to provide the artists with food or shelter. As long as they lived in supreme comfort they cared not for anyone else. They didn't even care that much of the product they were now peddling was soulless, heartless rubbish.
 
The artists realised that something had to change. People were shocked when artists came directly to them asking for money. The artists had no choice, they were starving and could no longer provide for themselves. People felt like they had already given a lot of money to their favourite artists. It took time for them to realise that nearly all the money they had spent had been stolen along the way. Luckily some of the artists found ways to spread the word, there were some people that thought the artists were being greedy but they soon realised that they needed to support them if they wanted art to live on.

As for the greeds, they fought with the people and the artists for many years until finally they died, poor, alone and forgotten. If they had only learned to support those who had brought them such great fortune they could have survived.
The End.

Hopefully music and art gets it's happy ending. People like Amanda are the trailblazers. It will be easier for all of the artists and musicians that come along down the track. I apologise for any grammar/spelling errors - I wrote it in five minutes.

Edit - this is a fairy tale. This is only how I would hope for it to be in a perfect world - in the real world I feel there are going to be way more obstacles. :'(

[stallionbreaker]

In terms of what is going through these peoples heads when purchasing these things, and my understanding of it. Like I said, it's a judgment on my part. I own it. I feel very passionately about "love the art, respect the artist". The artist is a person, treat them as such. Since music seems to be moving towards a more intimate setting overall, this is becoming more important. Even the power imbalance. Treat each other as people. Worship the music, the art, let it fill your life. Do not let your image of the creator of said art do the same thing. What people are paying for crosses this line (this very, very blurry line, especially in this case) in my opinion, in a few examples. I don't see how hero worship (ideally the healthy kind, you could argue) didn't come into play as part of their reason for buying.

Do these auctions encourage that behavior, or not? Can the "I'm not your bitch" statment hold up when on the other hand allowing fans to indulge in such a way? These are questions and not judgments, I want to know what you all think.

I think the auctions might push the balance between appreciation and hero worship for some people, but because Amanda chooses to be the one standing out front naked with her ukulele case asking for our money, she's pushing the balance of what is ANYway. It's new territory, and she's trying to see what works. If it comes to something like the issues T&S have had, then evidence will show that the balance has been upset. However, I don't believe we can know this before seeing how things play out. Because it upsets your sensibilities of "love the art, respect the artist", you hold onto this judgement about people who relate to artists differently than you do. I remember during/after the first webcast auction, there were people tutting and judging the bidders, particularly for the glass dildo and the song request (that I remember). When the bidders came out and told the story of why they were willing to pay so much, or why the item would mean this much to them, they became human to those of us watching. The stories made sense and the bidding became a sweet gesture (I'm thinking of Marci's wife buying the song request for their anniversary and the transgirl for whom this would be her first post-surgery dildo and a symbol of becoming more who she is). This is why I think your judgment is misplaced. Also, when Kim Boekbinder had her twitter yard sale, I bought a dress and a pair of stockings from her. I didn't want them because OMG they had belonged to Kim Boekbinder. I liked the dress. I knew it would help Kim if she was able to sell these things. I could afford it. End of story. You can't possibly know the reasons that someone has in their mind when they're making a choice like this. If you can't see past your idea that it would take some amount of hero worship for anyone to buy something on one of Amanda's webcast auctions, I'm glad you at least recognize that it's not necessarily the case.

As for the "I'm not your bitch" statement, I do believe that it holds up even in circumstances when "allowing fans to indulge in such a way". I don't see that hosting web auctions or various parties on the internet actually constitutes validation for any sense of a fan's entitlement to an artist (as a person or as an artist, as we are no more entitled to the music than we are to a hug/conversation with the artist). On the contrary, it would almost make us HER bitch... in a way that I'm not sure I can elaborate on without it sounding like it falls into the exploitation category that's been discussed here. In reality, I think that it is a case of NO ONE IS ANYONE'S BITCH IN THIS RELATIONSHIP. Respect from both ends is the rule.

[Musings]

I saw this comment on Amanda's blog by samuelbarker that was a really well worded but strong criticism.  What do people think?

I'm sure this will not be read this late in the game, but honestly, I see a reoccurring sentiment here that I've experienced myself. Money is becoming the focus. Every avenue of the Amanda Palmer media assault these days is about making money, how much money has been made and how much money is needed. This is the illustrator of what went wrong with the industry and how it will go to hell in the hands of the artists. Money is like a drug, even when you get enough, you will keep spending so you need more. "Getting by" is never enough, so we get more and more extravagant with our desires.

I was a devoted reader of the blog for more years than I'm willing to admit. I've watched great ideas come and great ideas go. I've seen many ideas come crashing down due to irresponsibility. The first Dresden Dolls companion was overdue, can't remember on the second one, but the WKAP pre-sale was a disaster and various other things. If more time was spent fulfilling obligation instead of coming up with more plans, people would be happier with this. When you're waiting for something you've already paid for to be delivered late and in an inferior state that what you ordered, you tend to be upset when another scam is up to make money.

The ideas are GREAT, the follow through is weak. Anyone who disagrees with this statement is someone you need to add to the top of your buddy list because they'll give everything. Think of it as a litmus test of sorts.

I think it is WONDERFUL that you are taking an initiative to battle against Roadrunner and correct the bad decisions Past Amanda made signing with them. It's important to keep everyone on the up and up. However, the constant updates on how much money you made from each idea and then following it up with an apology on why the last idea isn't working out is a bit ridiculous to the logical mind.

You have some of the most wonderful people in the world around you. People like Jason, Beth and other are folks that know what is good for you. They're not afraid, they're making sure you don't go to the well so often that it prematurely dries up. Those who enjoy your music will continue to buy albums. I honestly disliked half of the WKAP album, but I will still buy your next release due to the track record of old.

Live simple for a while and build it up. Work on new material and ask people to help the album get made. Asking people to finance your rent, trips abroad and various other schemes is not appropriate, honestly. If you want people to pay the artist, then people need to get art in return.

[Musings]

Alright, I'll start.

I don't agree with everything that was said in that quote, just thought it would be an interesting jumping point.

I know that Team AFP works damned hard to make sure everything goes smoothly and part of the charm of Amanda is that she goes way more ambitious in everything that she does than anyone else would, and sometimes that's an issue, and often it ends up beautiful.  And we know most of the issues with the preorder were because of outside people, at MusicToday, fucking up. 

But at the core of it is the same issue I saw with the webcasts and the blogs, and an issue I'm seeing voiced by others, elsewhere.  The ratio of asking for money and talking about money to actual art.  Money is necessary, and artists get shafted.  We all agree on this.  But when the ratio goes too far in the money direction and I personally, can't afford to do much more than buy the album through preorder and buy a shirt or two and go to concerts, I either feel a) guilted, because I can't fork over what needs to be forked over to keep the ship running, or b) annoyed, because I work hard and am saving and no one is going to buy my shit to pay my rent, c) bored, because I like Amanda's art, and while her business techniques are interesting, hearing again and again how awesome Twitter is or how much whatever pregnancy test went for is not what I care about.

And I understand some of this is due to Amanda trying to a) shove it in Roadrunner's face, b) deal with the industry as a whole and her new place in it and how to help other artists who are similarly screwed.

Kovacs' solution of having everyone pay entry to webcasts might solve that, actually.  If it's already that people are paying $10 to see art, then that's what they get -- art, or interesting discussion, or whatever -- not "here I am, selling something that is not art, because I need money to continue making art."

So fine, you might be right, dude, but I'll never admit it again.

[The Angel Raliel]

ahh but a dadaist would argue that anything sold during a webcast or onstage is art due to it being pesented as art to an audience by an artist!

[Pope Totalfrog]

I saw this comment on Amanda's blog by samuelbarker that was a really well worded but strong criticism.  What do people think?

I think he has a few valid arguments. Especially this part - I wouldn't have gone so far as to use the word scam though.

If more time was spent fulfilling obligation instead of coming up with more plans, people would be happier with this. When you're waiting for something you've already paid for to be delivered late and in an inferior state that what you ordered, you tend to be upset when another scam is up to make money.

There are so many ideas to make money that they seem to be getting in the way of just getting down to working on them. I know that Amanda has to eat and has to pay her rent but I am starting to get a little annoyed at the constant guilt trip about her bank balance. I have spent a lot of money on AFP over the years -   I buy the albums, I buy merch and I pay to go to shows. At least 95% of what I have purchased has been directly from the source - even when it has cost a little more. I have spent years spreading the word about Amanda and the Dolls. I am not rich. I have to eat and pay my rent too. 

I think that it is going to take a while to develop a good balance between business and art. Right now the balance is off but it will get better. I love the art and the artist enough to stick around and see how it all works out. I just hope that everyone else does too.

ahh but a dadaist would argue that anything sold during a webcast or onstage is art due to it being pesented as art to an audience by an artist!

I agree - but when the artist starts to make it their only act then is it still art?
 

[The Angel Raliel]

assuredly..... just not neccessarily good or bad art.... one could ague that the art is inherent in the attention it garners from its viewers.

[Musings]

One would hope that the attention doesn't wane.

[The Angel Raliel]

would that not merely be an artistic statement in itself, denoting the transient and ultimately perishable state of existence?


or am I verging on surrealist concepts and thus would be banished from the dadaist movement......

[Musings]

It's true, Amanda could choose to denote the transient and ultimately perishable statement of existence with her career path.  That is one way to go.

But, for those of us who love her work, we would rather not see that happen.  (Which I think is the same point the guy I quoted made -- I love your stuff, and I want you to exist, which is why I'm being tough on you now and pointing out what I think are the flaws).

[yosmark]

Come to México & take all my money 

[J_Beck]

assuredly..... just not neccessarily good or bad art.... one could ague that the art is inherent in the attention it garners from its viewers.

[ylferb]

assuredly..... just not neccessarily good or bad art.... one could ague that the art is inherent in the attention it garners from its viewers.

YEAH! Amanda could take her house apart and totally sell her toilet. 

[JohnnyDBBUK]

ah the famous toilet that hairclips regularly fall into

[ErikwithaK]

The only thing that people REALLY have a problem with is hearing about the amount of money made. When I was in beauty school, they told us, "5 things you never talk to clients about are: Sex, Drugs, Politics, Religion, and Money." Most people are more COMFORTABLE with hearing, "I made enough to pay my rent, and throw some to Beth for all the extra insane shit that she's had thrown at her this last month or two." But if no one is open and honest, and the truth is not told, then there will be no change. Kudos to Amanda for having balls in a music industry full of sheep. I will continue to support.

[J_Beck]

assuredly..... just not neccessarily good or bad art.... one could ague that the art is inherent in the attention it garners from its viewers.

YEAH! Amanda could take her house apart and totally sell her toilet. 

People have done worse:

The most recent can to be auctioned, #19, sold on 26 February 2007 in the USA for $80,000.

"It is a joke, a parody of the art market, and a critique of consumerism and the waste it generates."
—Stephen Bury

[J_Beck]

I think the best way to put this debate is if you are in the creative field you have lots of possible doors on what to do based on either your skill set or level of fame.

My above post with Manzoni's Artist's Shit shows the extreme one can do with their fame, he had a name as an artist so basically anything he put out was viewed that way.

Now this issue mirrors closely with one of free speech, you can with a few exceptions (like threatening someones life) say whatever you want.  And even though you have the freedom to do so you are held responsible for those actions.  Just like say the song "Oasis" pushed many buttons and Amanda now would not be able to do anything for a socially conservative group without tons of flack. 

So basically you have 2 things effecting what happens, how far the artist is willing to go and what their audience/possible clients are willing to put up with.  To use myself as another example, I choose not to shoot weddings not because of anything against them just they hold no interest to me and to make money off my photography I would much rather go through different avenues.  Then there is pornography, I have the skill sets and gear to make much better images in this field than whats out there but even though I do enjoy portraits this type does not speak to me so much (I hate the stereotypical "sexy" poses) and then there is the added stigma that could follow me to other possible jobs or my career in the fine art world. 

The later is the one that pertains more to this issue.  Yes I could probably make easy money doing it but there would be a stigma that could go on my possible career.  As we saw Amanda has strong views on the subject of the auctions so she has clearly thought it through and decided to go forward. 

Then there is her fan base and their reaction, we can see from the threads on the topic that it is mixed, no one is swearing off her music or anything severe but it has become an issue.  But as I have just mentioned she has given this thought and has earned this fame through hard work, so as for the decision on how far to go in any direction and it's possible consequences she is taking the responsibility of those decisions and any possible fall out in the feelings of her fan base as a whole.

[Fiddlerswake]

if acts like the boss, the stones, and u2 have the balls to charge (or allow their fans to be charged) hundreds of dollars for a ticket just to watch them play in a huge venue on a jumbotron (and people pay so very willingly), why cant amanda auction off something really cool and personal that will allow someone to have an actual connection with her and the fan-based community? that personal connection and knowing that the money isnt being used for ridiculous things like hiring someone to pick out all the green gummie bears from a bowl because someone famous hates green gummie bears, is worth so much more than sharing your experience with 5000 of your closest friends in an arena. amanda is welcome to all the money i can spare her to say thank you for making such awesome art and being an inspiration.

and why the hell do people care so much how i (or you) choose to spend my (our) hard earned money anyways? is there nothing more fitting to spend their time on or worry about?

[spookable]

I'm probably going to anger some people, being that I'm a newb here and therefore will be seen as having less stake in the matter, but there's a couple arguments I'm compelled to respond to.

The first surrounds the trouble people had ordering the book, and the idea everything else should be dropped until that's 100% resolved. I'm sorry to tell you this, but the production of art is a business (oh, dear, the "B" word), and while businesses are ethically bound to do their best to make amends when a product is unsatisfactory, it's simply not possible to shut everything else down in the process. Imagine that a series of unfortunate events caused you to owe hundreds of people money. Would you be able to devote 100% of your paycheck to paying people back until all debts were cleared? Or quit your job long enough to fix the situation that caused the debt?

The book thing sucks, but shit happens. I haven't seen anything to imply Beth or Amanda or anyone is any happier about it than you are. I've got a Masters in Crap Going Wrong And Everyone Blaming You, and it appears everyone is doing their best to fix it. If I'm wrong and Beth emailed you a picture of your book's pages being rolled up and used to snort the coke they bought with your money, let me know and I'll be won over to your opinion.

The other argument is that Amanda is om-nom-nomming dildos and selling other people's bodies instead of touring around, making new music and entertaining you. Personally I'm pretty entertained by the om-nom-nomming, but to each their own.

This one kind of confuses me. She put out an excellent album a year ago - those things aren't easy to do, and the big-name production doesn't make it any less of an effort. She made a lovely video series - not much simpler. She has been touring. She's talked about working on more films, and none of us can really know for sure if she's writing new material lately or not. Regardless, she seems like a busy musician to me, who happens to also be cramming new ways of directly interacting with her fans in the mix.

I really hope no one's just annoyed she's not touring near them. I live in the South, that happens to me a lot. There are other musicians to fill the gaps. Emile Autumn's touring right now. Rasputina's gearing up for a new tour and album in spring. Go cheat a little.

Okay, all done. Have at me.

[Katsim]

I'm just going to reply to a few comments which have been posted (but I'm being lazy and not quoting!).

Personally I have no issue with people being open about how much money they make, and that doesn't just apply to artists. Money is some weird taboo which I think shouldn't exist. I would prefer people to be totally open about their earnings. I find it interesting to hear how much Trent Reznor (just an example of a guy trying to do it a different way) has to spend and earns from various elements of his art - cds, touring, merchandise etc. If I buy my food from Tesco, I want to know how much money Tesco makes per year, so I'm all for Amanda being totally open about profits.

I also have no issues with auction webcasts. I watched it and thought it was fun and actually a good thing. I don't care if someone wants to spend hundreds on a particular item. We all have our individual desires - ok, I wouldn't pay £250 to get whipped by a dominatrix but I fully accept that other people might. There are band/artist items that I would pay considerable money for so I appreciate Amanda giving people that opportunity.

I would not be up for paying to watch webcasts, mainly because my internet connection is so bad that I often can't stream content so I'd basically waste my money. A lot of people I know in the UK have issues with net speed and I'm sure that's the case elsewhere. I also like that the webcasts are free, and in particular the auction one (which seems to have kicked this off), as it gives people the OPTION and you get to buy something that you can keep. I know we all pay for concert tickets but you have the experience of being in the room and experiencing the atmosphere. I'd consider paying maybe £2 for a webcast, but certainly not $10. If there were auctions every week then maybe it'd grate on my nerves a bit, but every now and again or selling a couple of one off items during a general webcast - no problem.

I think the problems people seem to be having with this whole money thing stem from age old taboos and mindsets of how things should be. I'm all for blurring all boundaries, erasing them and reforming them as need be.

Ah, also I really liked the idea that Amanda mentioned about a webcastathon and having 'opening acts' every hour or two. A great chance for her to introduce artists she likes and good exposure for other artists, which I think is one of the most valuable ways that an established artist can give back.

[stallionbreaker]

I saw this comment on Amanda's blog by samuelbarker that was a really well worded but strong criticism.  What do people think?

I'm sure this will not be read this late in the game, but honestly, I see a reoccurring sentiment here that I've experienced myself. Money is becoming the focus. Every avenue of the Amanda Palmer media assault these days is about making money, how much money has been made and how much money is needed. This is the illustrator of what went wrong with the industry and how it will go to hell in the hands of the artists. Money is like a drug, even when you get enough, you will keep spending so you need more. "Getting by" is never enough, so we get more and more extravagant with our desires.

I was a devoted reader of the blog for more years than I'm willing to admit. I've watched great ideas come and great ideas go. I've seen many ideas come crashing down due to irresponsibility. The first Dresden Dolls companion was overdue, can't remember on the second one, but the WKAP pre-sale was a disaster and various other things. If more time was spent fulfilling obligation instead of coming up with more plans, people would be happier with this. When you're waiting for something you've already paid for to be delivered late and in an inferior state that what you ordered, you tend to be upset when another scam is up to make money.

The ideas are GREAT, the follow through is weak. Anyone who disagrees with this statement is someone you need to add to the top of your buddy list because they'll give everything. Think of it as a litmus test of sorts.

I think it is WONDERFUL that you are taking an initiative to battle against Roadrunner and correct the bad decisions Past Amanda made signing with them. It's important to keep everyone on the up and up. However, the constant updates on how much money you made from each idea and then following it up with an apology on why the last idea isn't working out is a bit ridiculous to the logical mind.

You have some of the most wonderful people in the world around you. People like Jason, Beth and other are folks that know what is good for you. They're not afraid, they're making sure you don't go to the well so often that it prematurely dries up. Those who enjoy your music will continue to buy albums. I honestly disliked half of the WKAP album, but I will still buy your next release due to the track record of old.

Live simple for a while and build it up. Work on new material and ask people to help the album get made. Asking people to finance your rent, trips abroad and various other schemes is not appropriate, honestly. If you want people to pay the artist, then people need to get art in return.

I respectfully disagree that money has become the focus of all media attention. Shows/concerts haven't morphed into weird money-begging scenarios. Merch isn't plugged any more than is appropriate, to my mind. The BPAL scents are benefitting charity. The entire HousingWorks event was for charity, as was one other appearance where I saw Amanda this spring-becomes-summer. The twitter gig in Cambridge was donation only, and I didn't feel pressured to give. There is a myriad of activities that we experience and hear about that don't register when you start to think that something is the focus of attention. Humans have selective memories based on context, but we don't like to admit it. Money is the subject of conversation in AFP media because it's what's on Amanda's mind. The same way she talks about Neil, or about kidney infections, or about twitter, or about touring. Things seem to be ALL about money because people are uncomfortable talking about money. It's the thing that isn't talked about, and it's above and beyond all the other things that aren't talked about. Money is this shameful thing that we all need in our society, but that we don't want to admit to having/not having. I'd be fascinated if we could all sound off as to how much we make per hour/week/month/year. I doubt that we could be that bold. I doubt that I could be that bold.

Ideas come and go, and some are brilliant while others are not. Some are great ideas, but the execution is more difficult than one might expect. Expectations are often not met. I greatly appreciate all the communication from Team Amanda regarding where things are and how they're going. To me, this is more important than any deadline of execution. My patience is as boundless as the dawn if I know problems are being worked out.

The only thing that people REALLY have a problem with is hearing about the amount of money made. When I was in beauty school, they told us, "5 things you never talk to clients about are: Sex, Drugs, Politics, Religion, and Money." Most people are more COMFORTABLE with hearing, "I made enough to pay my rent, and throw some to Beth for all the extra insane shit that she's had thrown at her this last month or two." But if no one is open and honest, and the truth is not told, then there will be no change. Kudos to Amanda for having balls in a music industry full of sheep. I will continue to support.

This.

[Morpheus Laughing]

As others have said in different words - If people want to pay for these things then why not? There are always going to be a few people who get carried away and spend beyond their means.

In these auctions I don’t feel pressured into buying things that don’t want and I don’t feel guilty about not purchasing things that would be unreasonable for me to buy. It’s far less awkward than door to door sales and telemarketing. Also, although people are buying things on the auction that I probably am not going to buy, these auctions offer interesting glimpses of Amanda history that are worth tuning in for. It’s not a bad deal – I like the stories & larking and now I know where to buy goats – would we have got that if there was no talk of money changing hands? I think not!

Having said that I’m not sure I’m at a pay-to-watch stage yet; Time zones, useless UK broadband, and variable volume levels haven’t made the web casts especially easy to watch.

As for paying and buying in general, I am content as long as the staples (tickets, audio, and other miscellaneous merchandise) remain at - or in the case of the audio, move to - a price that is both fair to the artist and average fan. 

[Kovacs]

Sigh. This is what I get for trying to have this discussion from work...missed everything.

I wish I could quote and respond, but that would be massive. Bullet point time!

- I agree, and concede, that I have no idea what the buyers are thinking. I withdraw any judgement. I mean, I can still think it's pretty silly, but that reflects nothing about those people and/or their motivations. No malice intended.

- A lot of the points I was trying to make were lost in trying to either read this from a tiny keyboard or type it out when no ones looking. Oops. I'll try and sum up some food for thought.

- The auctions are not sustainable, for income. They rely on the hardcore fan base ponying up. They alienate potential new fans. The "they don't get it" claim is almost as bad a judgement as the one I just apologized for above. Can you really say that every potential fan who reads about these auctions, and is turned off by them, wouldn't be into the music/vibe/experience? It's very hard to view these auctions from the outside and see what a lot of you are seeing.

- I find it reeeeeally interesting that a lot of people are saying "If people want to pay that much in the auctions, let them" and "I wouldn't pay for a webcast" in the same statement. All the legitimate reasons to not want to pay aside, it's interesting, isn't it? I mean, the crux of the blog was "I'm not afraid to ask for your money". Not "I'm not afraid to allow the hardcore fans to pay for my rent" (though that was part of it).

If the new model is going to be to make money for these sorts of things, are you behind it, or not?

- I believe the money is in the non-archivable. The experience/personal interation/memory. How this will play out is a mystery. But I'd be really curious to see, for example, a weeklong webcast series, charging a very low amount per person to view/be a part of. What would the revenue behind that be? How is it different than charging for a concert? The money goes directly to the artist, everyone pays instead of a few (sustainable), and gets a unique, interactive experience.

Non-archivabe. In the land of cameras/internets/videos the non-recordable is solid gold.

[Morpheus Laughing]

The auctions might not have to be sustainable, if it stops working, it’s on to something else. The main problem for Amanda is that she has little control over the product that most fans want to pay her for – her music.  If she could take control of the sale of the music there would be much less of a problem. Of course, it looks like the label issue is going to drag out indefinitely, but that doesn’t mean the auctioning will necessarily persist or continue at this frequency.  The whole world is going through continuous changes and no one knows what new idea’s will suddenly become available to experiment with.   

As for new fans – it’s hard to say how deterred they are. I do know that before I knew very much about the Dresden dolls, I had already seen a load of youtube videos and made up my mind. It was some time before I read any critiques, my first step was to read the blogs – and they were intelligent, insightful and personable blogs that concurred well with what I got from the music. I have no idea what other people do. Do they go straight for the reviews and web casts? 

As for not paying for the webcast – it’s a psychological thing – I would much rather leave a general tip for all the things I like about what is done by Amanda than pay specifically for something that for me is not quite right. The web cast is, after all, the least well-refined thing she does and I’m sure there are other things that could tempt me to part with money.

Maybe the weeklong webcast subscription thing would work, who knows, but it doesn’t sound tempting. Maybe if Amanda pitches it I’d think differently, but the prospect of frequent web casts under current conditions (unreliable connection etc see previous post) doesn’t leave me with the same level of excitement that I might feel when (say) I read her blog or go to a show, or just about anything else really. It's a different kind of "Turn on, tune in, drop out."     

[insignifikunt]

So I've read every post here, and read a good chunk of the posts on the amandapalmer.net blog and maybe I'm just extremely impressionable but I find my opinion changing constantly. All in all I have NO problem what-so-ever with Amanda asking for money, I have spent more money on Amanda than pretty much any other artist in my life (there are two others that may be equal or close to). I am 25 years old and grew up in the age where music wasn't free unless your friend made you a mix tape or later on burnt you a CD, and I've never adopted the "illegal downloading because I can" mentality so most of my money goes on music (music is everything to me.)

In response to what Kovacs initially wrote and then MeAndMyCharms responded;

I can see where Kovacs is coming from, sort of, but I don't agree that what Amanda is doing is exploiting anybody. Or even comes close to it. I think more credit needs to be given to the people that have taken part in these auctions and purchased whatever items took their fancy. I personally haven't, but I would probably be slightly offended if I had, and was then lumped as a crazy fanatic.
I think a lot of people will do this, not because they are crazy weirdos, but because this is their way of saying thanks and giving something back, and getting a little piece of their favourite musician in return. I used the webcast to get my WKAP dvd for $25. Not because I really wanted the signature or anything, but because I knew that Amanda would benefit much more from me buying that one rather than the incredibly cheap non-signed version.

Pink recently did a string of 50 billion shows in Australia, and the price of her merchandise was off the charts. I heard to get a hoodie it was about $170, and the cheapest tickets to see her were no less than $100. Nobody accused her of exploiting fans or taking advantage of fanatics. It was just expected.
The only difference I see is Pink wasn't standing behind that merch table, taking the cash personally from everybody.

I guess I just find the criticism really unfair. It's not very often you get to see an amazing artist for only about $30. Plus on top of that, all the free shows and Pirate and/or Ninja gatherings, whatever the hell they are called (you know, those things with the ukes, cakes and signings), that come along in between shows.
Having things like these auctions, where a small select group of people who have the $$ and are willing to part with it for the cause, will continue to help keep future ticket and merch prices down.

I'm all for embracing this kind of shit. I hope the criticism doesn't make Amanda think twice before doing random things like this again.

Fuck that.

I agree. I also see where Kovac's is coming from but I just wanted to say I don't think it's necessarily exploitation because the person who CHOSE to bid on shit like a glass dildo obviously felt something awesome through winning it. It gave them the feeling like they were part of something or contributed to something important to them and their favourite artist. Maybe it's a temporary feeling maybe not. People spend thousands on blow which will only give them a temporary buzz knowing it'll only be temporary. It's like spending $100+ on a 2 hour gig. I've done it plenty and I feel it's worth it because for those 2 hours you are transported somewhere amazing (well that is the idea anyway.) I love that Amanda does this for a fraction of the price. Whoever bought her glass dildo, the love letter she wrote as a kid or anything else she sold at auction felt special when purchasing it. They knew they were helping her out (who gives a fuck if it is on a mass scale and Amanda won't remember their name) and getting some sort of token in return. Maybe down the line they'll think why the fuck did I do that, but for now it was the right decision. Personally I wouldn't by a glass dildo, but I bought the #lofnotc shirt and the om nomed DVD because those are the things I'm into, I don't judge people for buying the other items though.

Another point is Amanda gave people the OPTION to buy that DVD for $7... 7 fucking dollars, you can't even buy a proper meal for that price anymore but she is offering you something you can have forever. She also offered it for $25 autographed with free shipping worldwide. So you were given the option. Sure the $7 option meant you had to pay shipping on top of it, but you can't help that... This is something I want to comment about in a minute though...

I just don't get why there is so much criticism, Amanda is NOT the first person to do this despite all the claims that she is in uncharted territory. There are auctions held all the fucking time by other artists WITHOUT the added bonus of hosting a webcast for those no interested in purchasing,  and they don't get labelled as money hungry and was it dyke some fucktard called her and someone else said they hoped she drowned in her tea. That shit is just fucked up and I can't understand why people can be so fucking callous. There are plenty of artists out there I can't stand, for their personality and their art, but I've never wish them dead.

Maybe the idea to monetise a webcast would not be to charge to watch because there are those who can't afford to pay, or don't have the set up to pay online, but just to have a virtual tip jar to donate while watching as Amanda has suggested doing... Or maybe instead of having the webcast available to watch afterwards, charge (or dontate) for purchase of a download of it so those who aren't able to watch at the time, can later on or for those with streaming difficulties? I have every faith that her fans will donate when they are able because they do!

I've never been able to actually watch the auction webcasts because I'm in Oz so time zone differences fuck up the chance, but I can imagine it probably does get boring  just watching Amanda sell shit, so doing a virtual gig with a tipping jar more would be far more exciting with the occasional auction every other month or whatever. I did make sure I made myself available to by the DVD, I waited for months for it to become available for direct purchase rather than ordering it through a middle man.

I responded to a few comments on the blog and can't be fucked going on about it here as well but I will say this, Amanda can't please everyone. There is always going to be criticism in everything she does, whether the criticism has merit or not. I just think she needs to be sure she does take on board some of the criticisms whilst others are rightfully ignored. I know why she ignored Jason and Beth in this instance and I do agree with why she did BUT hopefully she continues to LEARN from mistakes and doesn't repeat them over and over again in search of the perfect business model because there isn't a perfect business model. She will never appeal to everyone. Some people just don't find the value in music has much as others.

She has taken a huge risk by becoming the business of her art once again. When she was a nobody people found it endearing, now that she has a profile it appears as though people find it offensive that she could still ask for money which I think is fucked (not that she is asking for money but that people are bitching about it). It is such a touchy subject for everyone and causes such defensive and offensive behaviour in people. The thing is though, by becoming the face of her business (how she monetises her art) and cutting out the middle man, she will be facing many more costs she previously didn't need to think about so continuing to ask for money is fair enough.

I do have a criticism about that blog and how she talks about middle men... I agree labels are fucked, big money hungry corporations are fucked, BUT not everyone who can be considered a middle man are fucked.

So this from total frog sort of offended me as well;

They could not create, they were born without hearts and therefore had no imagination - it also meant that they felt no guilt making all of their money from the hard work of others.

Not everyone in the music industry (i.e. the business of music not the creative side) are money hungry cunts. Some people chose to get into the industry to HELP artists and fans alike! There are people like Beth and Sean, that make things happen every day behind to scenes so that money gets from fan to Amanda and art from Amanda to fan and no one can call them evil fuckers can they? But in effect they ARE middle men. Just as I'm sure not everyone who works at Road Runner or Ticketmaster are evil fuckers. It's those at the top that are evil, not those who actually slave away for the artists.

Maybe I'm just being touchy because I work in the industry... I just don't appreciate people suggesting just because I don't make the art that I don't deserve to be paid for offering artists a service that will inevitably end to them being paid for their art. It's like saying a chef isn't deserving of being paid to make you food because you can do it for yourself, it just won't taste as good.

I don't and never wish to work for a label and I don't agree with what they do at all and in some respects what total frog said is right, but it's as stereotypical saying everyone in the business of music is greedy as it is saying an artist should be starving to be taken seriously as an artist.

[The Angel Raliel]

as the person whos painting was auctioned at the Electric ballroom gig in Camden.... I would like to point out that the entirety of the money raised from that auction went to helping the Danger Ensemble  continue to tour with Amanda....I did not see a penny of it and never asked for a penny of it.... if money can be raised directly at gigs or from webcasts to support artists (the people on stage/ local creative talents an art commune in tibet etc)THEN i AM ALL FOR IT!
might need some support myself soon!

[CourtneyFG]

amanda needs money, we all need money, it's a cold hard fact of life

MONEY MAKES THE WORLD GO ROUND (love and devotion just don't cut it anymore)

amanda's record label shafted her and left her for broke, and now shes got bills to pay, these aren't just the regular bills that you and i have, like rent, food, alcohol, clothes, entertainment, she has other bills, and for all incentive purposes amanda is her own business, she has to pay her manager, her personal assistant, her tech support team, she's also got her touring costs which include travel, venue hire, her sound and lighting guy, touring promoters, accommodation (when she doesn't get fans to house her), renting a keyboard (cause she doesn't always use her own). i'm sure there are things i have left out and forgotten, but all these things add up, it's no wonder she is in debt.

so she has to make money and she's doing that the only way she knows how, by butting out that virtual hat, and asking us to give what we can.

but we all know this, as fans we have read her blogs, watched her web casts, we've been swamped with tweets, amanda has told us that times are tough and the revolution has arrived.

the people that are judge her the most her the people who don't know this, the people who are just starting to learn about who she is and what she does, and one of the first thing they discover about her is that she openly and willingly sells used dildos over the internet via a web cast auction. this would be the point were a lot of people who don't understand, will step back go 'WTF!' and run for the hills, and these people are potential fans.

i say bring back the middle man, well in a way.

a lot of these things become acceptable to and onlooker when done by some one who is not the artist. what i am suggesting is to have a middle man that is in the same spirit as 'evelyn evelyn' a middle man who isn't a middle man but for some who who didn't know who it really was would find the situation legitimate.

did any of that make sense?

as for paying for web casts. i don't like the idea. having a "virtual hat or tip jar" link on the web cast page would be cool. but there are too may fans that can't afford it. amanda strives to make that connection with her fans, it's a rare privileged, and by charging people, it will make it exploitations, it's saying ' i will only connect to my fans it they are going to pay me for it' like someone else said it would be like paying to read her blog or get her twitter updates. besides you never know what's going to happen in a web cast, sometimes you get really cool ones, like when she played 'australia' for the first time, any other times you get footage from a forgotten about mac, while everyone get ready for a film clip shoot, you would never know what you are paying for. then there is also the question of what to do with the archived videos. do you have to pay to access those, or are they just not going to be archived, and if they aren't archived, what about those people who miss out or are in other times zones, do they just miss out because they happen to be asleep or at school or at work. it just wouldn't be fair.

if you start charging for web casts where do you draw the line, because the next thing you know there will be a membership fee for the shadowbox, and a monthly subscription costs ( i know this is a bit extream, but it helps me make my point)

i say she should keep going like she is, auctions, merchandise, making art.

(maybe should could just pimp herself out, and have a kissing booth instead of a signing table and charge a dollar a kiss)

in the end people spend their own money the way they want to spend it, and if it is in support of the music, art, entertainment that they enjoy that's even better, because if there is no funding, our amanda will be a staving, and she won't be able to share her art with us.

on a side note, amanda has shed light on the path for up and coming artists to follow and they too are asking for money, kim boekbinder, many of you will know her as one half of vermilion lies, wants to make a solo album, but needs money to make it happen, because she like amanda is broke, please help her out. it would be a shame if the world did not get to experience her music.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/KimBoekbinder/kim-boekbinder-solo-recording

[Agonistes]

what is interesting to me, and what hasn't come up (that i've seen) are the comparison of 'actual' numbers, and the fact that, even as a performer with one instrument, there are expenses one never even dreamed of involved when oneself is one's business.  let me see if i can explain myself better.

i have to use tattooing as an example, as usual, because it is the example i have.  it sounds great to say i have a job that can bring in $15k in one month.  however, it can also bring in only three lil k's, or five hundred dollars, depending on the month.  money is money, of course, and unless one owns the shop one doesn't really have to worry so much about overhead.  if one has to pay the rent and keep it all together (or pay someone who can, since artists rarely can themselves), you'll find you barely break even in a month.

also, if you tell your friends what you make, they automatically assume you're doing extremely well for yourself and start trying to scam free work, or assuming you are financially secure enough to where it intimidates or bothers them.  so bragging is pretty much out unless they have a working idea of what it costs to keep doing what you do.

let me see if i can explain it without breaking down numbers too much, because i suck at that, because i'm an artist.  it's easy to look at a figure like, well ten k, and think, oooo.  most people see ten large and think to themselves, 'wow, that's a shitload of money.'  it isn't.  it's a shitload of money to be able to take and blow on the casino boat or to spend on a night out (depending on where, the night out), but, really, it isn't.  i once worked at a shop that had a five thousand dollar a month advertising budget.  my own advertising budget barely cleared 3k a month, and that's during the busiest i ever was, but still that's a shop in a small town, and it's still 3 fucking k a MONTH.  those of you lucky enough to pay four hundred dollars or so in rent who have had trouble scrambling for cash for that can understand exactly this, and those of you with 1600 bucks or more in rent, god love your heart.  and those of you still at home who haven't had to pay rent yet......you're going to just hate it.  may you all find ways to make cash that you love (some days it will still feel like a job, though).

it wasn't easy when i first walked into the job to look someone in the eye and ask for three hundred dollars for something i'd do on paper watching tv at home anyway, and would take under two hours, and that in the end i get a shitload of praise for and kudos and junk.  the art part is easy, the technical part is tedious, and the social part is about fifty percent hateful and fifty percent ego-feeding and glorious.  however, i can't imagine it is easy in any way to frankly ask for money for performance...but after two decades or so of tattooing, i know how doing what you enjoy doing can become a job.  and if you know what it costs you physically in time with a customer's mind, in physical movement and fatigue (and yes, you get fatigued drawing on people and moving with them when they twitch and absorbing their heat as you crouch over them, and so on)......OR onstage in sweat and emotions and the work you do to entertain, which is considerable; well, you get to a point where you will take that money without even blinking.  without apology.  in fact, you will demand it, complete with a hair flip.

what i have found are two ways that work for people.  in a very busy jumping crowded horrible shop in mobile, i found that asking a little from a very lot of people brought in more, on some nights, than doing less work for more money; that is; bigger tattoos on fewer people.  either way you work about the same hours, but you spread yourself thinner the more tattoos you actually do.  i think this is different with this situation......the idea mentioned before about asking ten dollars a person for a webcast or the like is a great one; more people will be reached than those who can happily afford auctions, and the auctions don't have to cease because the fun can go on like that anyway.

hope i made sense.  i'm drowning in money matters myself at the moment; i got headhunted by a shop that needs revival and have been pondering creative financing myself lately.  even caught myself saying the dreaded r-word to the owner the other night.........................retail.

[Pope Totalfrog]

So this from total frog sort of offended me as well;

They could not create, they were born without hearts and therefore had no imagination - it also meant that they felt no guilt making all of their money from the hard work of others.

Not everyone in the music industry (i.e. the business of music not the creative side) are money hungry cunts. Some people chose to get into the industry to HELP artists and fans alike! There are people like Beth and Sean, that make things happen every day behind to scenes so that money gets from fan to Amanda and art from Amanda to fan and no one can call them evil fuckers can they? But in effect they ARE middle men. Just as I'm sure not everyone who works at Road Runner or Ticketmaster are evil fuckers. It's those at the top that are evil, not those who actually slave away for the artists.

I wouldn't call Beth and Sean record company middlemen. They don't work for a faceless organisation that takes money from artists - they work directly for an artist, to help that artist in particular - not to bring in cash for a large multinational corporation. There is a big difference between a personal assistant and a record companmy executive.
I know people in the music industry. Most of them are lovely (but they are not running the show). I have also known a number of people who have worked for Roadrunner, including my best friend. He left because they weren't so much interested in the bands - only in how much money the bands were bringing in. The people who get into it to make money and don't care about the music are the ones who ending taking the lion's share of the wealth and they are the type of people I was referring to.
Edit - Miss Insignifikunt, I had a look at your blog comments and you and I agree on just about everything

what is interesting to me, and what hasn't come up (that i've seen) are the comparison of 'actual' numbers, and the fact that, even as a performer with one instrument, there are expenses one never even dreamed of involved when oneself is one's business.  let me see if i can explain myself better.

This is very true. I think people only saw the gross figure from the auctions and never took into account all of the things that had to be paid for out of that money.

[insignifikunt]

So this from total frog sort of offended me as well;

They could not create, they were born without hearts and therefore had no imagination - it also meant that they felt no guilt making all of their money from the hard work of others.

Not everyone in the music industry (i.e. the business of music not the creative side) are money hungry cunts. Some people chose to get into the industry to HELP artists and fans alike! There are people like Beth and Sean, that make things happen every day behind to scenes so that money gets from fan to Amanda and art from Amanda to fan and no one can call them evil fuckers can they? But in effect they ARE middle men. Just as I'm sure not everyone who works at Road Runner or Ticketmaster are evil fuckers. It's those at the top that are evil, not those who actually slave away for the artists.

I wouldn't call Beth and Sean record company middlemen. They don't work for a faceless organisation that takes money from artists - they work directly for an artist, to help that artist in particular - not to bring in cash for a large multinational corporation. There is a big difference between a personal assistant and a record companmy executive.
I know people in the music industry.  I have also known a number of people who have worked for Roadrunner, including my best friend. He left because they weren't so much interested in the bands - only in how much money the bands were bringing in. The people who get into it to make money and don't care about the music are the ones who ending taking the lion's share of the wealth and they are the type of people I was referring to.

No they aren't record company middle men, but they are middle men, they only get paid if AFP does, so it's also in their best interests that she makes money. I am not saying that is the driving force behind why they work for her, obviously it's not but they do have an interest in her financial status. They are part of the business that is Amanda Fucking Palmer so yes there is a big difference between an assistant and a record company executive, BUT there is also a similarity in that money is still the bottom line. I'm not claiming to know what they think and feel or put words in their mouth but I'm sure Beth and Sean care about Amanda and her art far more than any record company employees but if Amanda doesn't make money from her art, they are unemployed, and I doubt they'd be able or much less want to work for free no matter how much they believe in her art.

Anyway I know you aren't referring to everyone in the music industry, but I just think Amanda is placing this massive negativity on people who work the business side of the industry because they aren't the artists. Sure there is a possibility she'd be exactly where she is today (profile wise) without their help, but maybe she wouldn't. Again I must stress I am not sticking up for record labels here, especially not road runner, but I just don't think it's realistic for her to say cut out ALL the middle men, it's not feasible because she can't do it all on her own. Sean and Beth are evidence of that!

Like I said in that other post, maybe I'm just being touchy because I have chosen to take on the world of music business after being inspired to help by my favourite artists, only to have one of the ones I respect most speak badly of anyone who wishes to make a living through art that isn't necessarily their own. Maybe it's not art to spend hours online booking fucking gigs for no name bands hoping they'll at least cover the venue fees, maybe it's not art to spend hours on myspace trying to find other bands suitable to support no name band and hopefully bring a crowd... There is creativity involved in coming up with promo and writing media releases though! So yes maybe I along with other music business people can't create in an artistic sense, but a hell of a lot of work goes into monetising music/art once it's been created and 9 times out of 10 it's not the artist who does that work. Nor should it be! Their job is done once the art is created. So I just think it needs to be acknowledged that not all people who make money from someone elses art is evil.

[Chris Con]

i think half of the people who post these hate-comments on the blog totally misunderstand your situation, dont know your history, and dont know what you do well enough. i think its weird how people are getting their panties in a twist over the fact that you are actually directly asking for money instead of leading us to give our money to your record label, to the venues, etc. this is your JOB, your CAREER, and most of all, your passion. i follow you religiously and know all of the hard work you put into everything, how you're always giving, doing ukulele gigs, staying after every single show to meet people, sign things, connect, sneaking underage kids into clubs so they can see your show, getting your fans on the guest list, putting them in music videos, giving away tickets. dude, amanda, you gave me your fucking phone number. so many artists would charge a fucking fortune for all of those things. i've never come across an artists who does so much for their fans. i would be more than happy to give you some cash directly in order to show my appreciation and support for what you do rather than spending loads of money on stuff that i know you will see hardly any profit from.

i love you & keep doing what you do.
P.S. i hope this post isnt redundant

[virtual~mary]

- I believe the money is in the non-archivable. The experience/personal interation/memory. How this will play out is a mystery. But I'd be really curious to see, for example, a weeklong webcast series, charging a very low amount per person to view/be a part of. What would the revenue behind that be? How is it different than charging for a concert? The money goes directly to the artist, everyone pays instead of a few (sustainable), and gets a unique, interactive experience.

Non-archivabe. In the land of cameras/internets/videos the non-recordable is solid gold.

this.

i, too, believe the future and the money are in the non-archivable. the "live" experience, there's nothing like it. have you ever listened to a live recording of a concert you attended and thought "but it was better than that!"

for the most part, i like to buy my merch at the show (it adds to the experience) or i like to buy something that's limited edition. (i view people buying things during webcasts in much the same way). i'd rather contribute cash toward bringing an artist to my city than to produce their new record.

i don't think archivable is obsolete, i just think it's a means to an end. the end being to entice the audience/listener to non-archivable. for that reason it needs to be the least expensive/easiest/free/most open access means to that end.

[Musings]

Yeah, as usual virtual~mary and Kovacs are making more sense, after I think about it.

The key is sustainability and balance, which pay-per-webcasts will do, I think, now that I've come around.  And it's hard to see what will happen because Amanda is forging new territory.

The thing is, it's not only new fans who are being alienated by the auctions.  The person I quoted was not a new fan, and I know others who are thinking similar things.

For every person who is saying "Amen", how many are putting money/willing to put money behind what they say?  The younger fans are not the ones spending $700 on guitars, sorry, and at some point there is a limitation on what that small amount of fans who are willing to shell out that kind of money can buy.

[J_Beck]

it wasn't easy when i first walked into the job to look someone in the eye and ask for three hundred dollars for something i'd do on paper watching tv at home anyway, and would take under two hours, and that in the end i get a shitload of praise for and kudos and junk.  the art part is easy, the technical part is tedious, and the social part is about fifty percent hateful and fifty percent ego-feeding and glorious.  however, i can't imagine it is easy in any way to frankly ask for money for performance...but after two decades or so of tattooing, i know how doing what you enjoy doing can become a job.  and if you know what it costs you physically in time with a customer's mind, in physical movement and fatigue (and yes, you get fatigued drawing on people and moving with them when they twitch and absorbing their heat as you crouch over them, and so on)......OR onstage in sweat and emotions and the work you do to entertain, which is considerable; well, you get to a point where you will take that money without even blinking.  without apology.  in fact, you will demand it, complete with a hair flip.

This is a huge point I think and was so weird for me at first too.  I am coming from a different field but a quick photo shoot doing standard commercial type shots or even graphic/web design depending what the client wants can seem really simple compared to the work you do for yourself.  So charging those large amounts for what seems like sometimes even busy work is just mind boggling.  I basically just sat down one day and realized for someone to do it on their own beyond just the creative ability they need the training, and equipment which would be a big chunk of money and time, and for a something that is a small part of their overall business it makes no sense.  So they are buying that creativity and the technical proficiency/equipment time.

Now this is getting really off track from the thread but back to your work I have seen some "homemade" tattoos from people who have friends who get access to machines and that 300 dollars is definitely worth it, there are some real horrible tattoos out there.   :'(

[Agonistes]

it wasn't easy when i first walked into the job to look someone in the eye and ask for three hundred dollars for something i'd do on paper watching tv at home anyway, and would take under two hours, and that in the end i get a shitload of praise for and kudos and junk.  the art part is easy, the technical part is tedious, and the social part is about fifty percent hateful and fifty percent ego-feeding and glorious.  however, i can't imagine it is easy in any way to frankly ask for money for performance...but after two decades or so of tattooing, i know how doing what you enjoy doing can become a job.  and if you know what it costs you physically in time with a customer's mind, in physical movement and fatigue (and yes, you get fatigued drawing on people and moving with them when they twitch and absorbing their heat as you crouch over them, and so on)......OR onstage in sweat and emotions and the work you do to entertain, which is considerable; well, you get to a point where you will take that money without even blinking.  without apology.  in fact, you will demand it, complete with a hair flip.

This is a huge point I think and was so weird for me at first too.  I am coming from a different field but a quick photo shoot doing standard commercial type shots or even graphic/web design depending what the client wants can seem really simple compared to the work you do for yourself.  So charging those large amounts for what seems like sometimes even busy work is just mind boggling.  I basically just sat down one day and realized for someone to do it on their own beyond just the creative ability they need the training, and equipment which would be a big chunk of money and time, and for a something that is a small part of their overall business it makes no sense.  So they are buying that creativity and the technical proficiency/equipment time.

Now this is getting really off track from the thread but back to your work I have seen some "homemade" tattoos from people who have friends who get access to machines and that 300 dollars is definitely worth it, there are some real horrible tattoos out there.   :'(

i do rather well sometimes, just fixing horrible work.  in fact i have been making the difficult decision to go into tattoo equipment supply, just so the scratchers around my area will at least have clean needles and clean tubes to work with.  artwise, people are usually willing to pay for what they want, when they know they are getting exactly what they want, i have found, especially after they are burned by low prices and low-price work.  working on a person out of your kitchen basically means you have no incentive to touch up your work when the natural healing process screws it up, as can happen.

which actually brings us back on topic a little....the people who have spent money on amanda's work obviously felt they were getting something out of it (and still do).  i know i feel i got something from the money i spent; although i mention critical points at times (like my bit of criticism of the book, for example, on another thread), but i have no buyer's remorse (i like my book and it's on my coffee table), and i still spend money when i can, and want to.  i'd give time and effort as well, more often, if there were a way i could, but i live way the hell down here in the south so i haven't the opportunity to volunteer roadie work or rides or even crash space as often as i would like.  and, i don't brigade, simply because my background before tattooing (and final major in college) is backstage/tech.  tattooing is only performance art in the sense that people will watch you work all day, but you're not doing it for their benefit at the moment, or even communicating with them in any way.  i can build amazing puppets for you, but stage fright dictates i only operate it if i am not visible to the audience, because that's too much stress.  my last appearance onstage in my life was inside the 'little shop of horrors' plant in my junior year.  i'm just plain not a performer; i'm one of the guys dressed in black behind the performers, handing them their stuff and making sure they are lit.

and, i don't mind a metaphorical tips jar at the lip of the stage, either, if that makes sense.  i have a tips jar in my workstation, and about four hundred signs that say things like 'what kind of an asshole doesn't tip' and 'tiping is not a city in china; it's a misspelled word' and 'tip everyone you see and we will make sure you are happier here than at home.'  i used to have one about unattended children being tattooed for practice and then sold into slavery but i had a complaint so now it only says 'children left unattended will be towed at owner's expense.'  anyway my point is, although someone paid an artist to put something on them, that artist has to pay the shop so they can keep renting their chair, keep the lights on, and keep the roof over all our heads.  there is no reason why they shouldn't beg for tips; true you pay what the meal is worth, but you tip someone because you didn't have to fix it, serve it, do the dishes from it, water the plants in the big pretty pots, feed the fish in the aquariums, or rent the fucking building you ate it in.

the difference between allowing a scratcher to put something on you for cheap/spending cash on a record company; and going to a professional tattoo artist/spending cash on an artist that touches you on a personal level and you know your cash is going to support them, specifically......it seems comparable, in a sense.  although i operate out of an established shop, and don't (at the moment) fly around giving tattoo parties like concerts (or have a tv show on tattooing, like miami ink, which is in no way indy anyway), i think it is a similar form of art-for-payment.  i'm only in business because i have something people want to spend cash on.  amanda is the same in a sense, but in her case, the shop, in a sense, never closes.  it's open every time you turn on your i-pod...or your computer, for that matter.

bottom line, the woman works her ass off more than most musicians i have ever liked or seen. not just to perform as often as she can, which is grueling, but to be as accessible to her fans as possible, which is also exhausting.   i think she should be paid for it.

[MeAndMyCharms]

I've noticed a couple of people saying that these auctions are "alienating" people, and as much as I try, I can't understand why this would be. In what way does it do this?
I think people take what Amanda says/does way too personally. If her auctioning off her own personal items on a webcast that you have the choice to watch bothers you in any way, then you probably shouldn't watch it.
These arguments are reminding me of another thing that I feel very strongly about. Censorship. People argue that certain things shouldn't be shown on tv because of the content. It might be full of bad language, violence or nudity, so people take it upon themselves to restrict what everybody should have the right watch if they choose to do so. These people will argue that it's a bad influence, so therefore it should be banned. But what gives them the right to stop me from watching it? Nothing. What I choose to watch is my own business. Anybody who does not like it, has the very easy option of not watching it.
Just because I watch it doesn't make me a bad person. And just because the creators of the show keep making this so called "offensive material" does not mean that what they are doing is wrong. At all.

So Amanda will sometimes hold an auction to raise some money to pay off her many bills. That's her choice to do so. Same thing applies to the people who tune in and participate. They do it under their own free will. They want to watch and be a part of it.
If you are uncomfortable with the webcasts, my suggestion is to just not watch it. You really don't need to be involved in these kind of things in any way if it's not your cup of tea. You can continue to go to live shows, donate to the tip hat, buy cd's and merch and do your meet and greets when when she comes your way. You don't have to follow every single thing that Amanda does. If you hate the way she talks about her money issues, don't follow her on twitter, just follow AFPWire to get all your Amanda news.
To read people's comments that Amanda shouldn't to do as she pleases with her own personal property in her own time bothers me a little. I'm finding it really hard to put my exact feelings into the right words, so I hope it's coming across on here as it is in my head, but I feel like too many people are being incredibly judgmental. I guess when I read all this, I imagine as if it were me being talked about. How I would feel if people felt they had the right to judge me and my choices? Judge me on how open I chose to be about my personal life and money issues. If I was to read comments from people telling me that what I felt comfortable with, choices that I made and that I was proud of were wrong, I'd be really upset about that. What right does a person have to tell me how to run my life?
Just because somebody is a public figure, it doesn't mean they have to change who they are. This is who she is, and from what I can tell from blogs and interviews, this is who she has always been.

I guess what I really can't understand is the "why?" part of this. I never even thought anything of it before the blog. Why so against something that, in my opinion, really shouldn't effect you?
How can one person's choice to sell some of her own personal items for profit cause such a massive debate?

[Agonistes]

I've noticed a couple of people saying that these auctions are "alienating" people, and as much as I try, I can't understand why this would be. In what way does it do this?

i'm having trouble understanding this myself, but you put it better than i did.  the way i see it, if she had a yard sale or put everything on e-bay, no one would have said shit (or known she was selling it).  by using the great big internet and taking the time to sit down and do a little show, herself, she got the most profit and the widest audience possible.  and we're talking about an artist willing to sign almost anything you hand her (like my leg, even when she was tired and had already done the signing and was doing photos), so it's not like only an elite portion of fans was reached out to, ever at all.

[Rob]

For every person who is saying "Amen", how many are putting money/willing to put money behind what they say? 

Right here, Yo. 

[ylferb]

For every person who is saying "Amen", how many are putting money/willing to put money behind what they say? 

Right here, Yo. 

Here.

[Pope Totalfrog]

I've noticed a couple of people saying that these auctions are "alienating" people, and as much as I try, I can't understand why this would be. In what way does it do this?

I don't think the auctions are alienating. They are usually hilarious - especially when there is wine involved. The only people who might find them alienating are new fans who don't have a clue what is going on. The biggest problem with them is that they aren't sustainable. It would be awesome if Amanda could sit in front of her fans once a week and auction stuff off - but it would never work - she would either run out of stuff or run out of people to sell it to.

I like Kovac's idea of paying for webcasts. A non-archived webcast just for paying subscribers seems like a great way to go. Would you pay?

[BATTEREDxBRIDExLUVR!]

I like Kovac's idea of paying for webcasts. A non-archived webcast just for paying subscribers seems like a great way to go. Would you pay?

This may sound mean, but I would pay as long as there was some sort of... guaranteed thing. Maybe there would be a down payment or something where everyone in attendance got something, even if it was just a post card? I will be honest; I am a high school student and I am involved in a lot of extracurricular things and I don't get home until 4 or 5, and I usually have at least an hour of homework, so a job would be really difficult for me. Long story short, I'm broke. I don't have a lot of money to give if I'm paying for a live webcast; there have been one or two that I got bored half way through and left. I'm pretty sure most people don't bid or plan to spend any money; if there are maybe 30 bidders out of 1000 viewers, that is not a great amount. It could definitely work but I would need to feel it was definitely worth however much money it costs.

I still really like the idea of request auctions. The more music-related these things are (I know, I know), the more I enjoy it.

[ylferb]

I'm trying to remember the conversation audrey and I were having yesterday...we were talking about this. I think we concluded that re: paying for webcasts and/or paying for the forum - that is what some bands make their fans do. That is how they make their money. With AFP, the forum is free, the webcasts are free, twitter is free, the emails are free, the blog is free - all of the stuff which she could charge for similarly to other bands is free. Personally, I'd rather all that were free and there were loads of new plans for t-shirts, books, auctions, nommed DVDs, posters - and the tip jar - so that those who can afford to support Amanda WHEN they can support Amanda can choose to do so of their own free will. If you can't afford to at a certain time, you don't miss out. As has been said on here before, she's asked people to rip her CDs and hand them out, she's fine with people downloading her music...if all of this is going to be so freely given, then there's got to be a compromise somewhere. Personally, I'd rather she asked outright that people support her when and if they can rather than all the time which would mean that for some, she would become inaccessible. I think she'll retain far more loyalty from fans that way than doing what a lot of other bands/artists seem to do and charge for the privilege of interaction (and we all know that interaction with AFP is way more than one would get with many others).

Again, apologies for the rambly nature of post, but that's the basic conclusion that Auds and I came to.

[Pope Totalfrog]

I'm trying to remember the conversation audrey and I were having yesterday...we were talking about this. I think we concluded that re: paying for webcasts and/or paying for the forum - that is what some bands make their fans do. That is how they make their money. With AFP, the forum is free, the webcasts are free, twitter is free, the emails are free, the blog is free - all of the stuff which she could charge for similarly to other bands is free. Personally, I'd rather all that were free and there were loads of new plans for t-shirts, books, auctions, nommed DVDs, posters - and the tip jar - so that those who can afford to support Amanda WHEN they can support Amanda can choose to do so of their own free will. If you can't afford to at a certain time, you don't miss out. As has been said on here before, she's asked people to rip her CDs and hand them out, she's fine with people downloading her music...if all of this is going to be so freely given, then there's got to be a compromise somewhere. Personally, I'd rather she asked outright that people support her when and if they can rather than all the time which would mean that for some, she would become inaccessible. I think she'll retain far more loyalty from fans that way than doing what a lot of other bands/artists seem to do and charge for the privilege of interaction (and we all know that interaction with AFP is way more than one would get with many others).

Again, apologies for the rambly nature of post, but that's the basic conclusion that Auds and I came to.

This would be awesome in a perfect world. What you have said is pretty much the way things are now - everything is free and everything else people buy when they can. I think we would all love it to stay the way it is. Unfortunately it isn't working. That model would be great if it gave you enough money to live on but when it doesn't where can you go next for cash? I don't think Amanda would ever go the route of some other bands and make everything user pays but she has to find other ways to make money so that she can continue as a performer.

[ylferb]

I'm trying to remember the conversation audrey and I were having yesterday...we were talking about this. I think we concluded that re: paying for webcasts and/or paying for the forum - that is what some bands make their fans do. That is how they make their money. With AFP, the forum is free, the webcasts are free, twitter is free, the emails are free, the blog is free - all of the stuff which she could charge for similarly to other bands is free. Personally, I'd rather all that were free and there were loads of new plans for t-shirts, books, auctions, nommed DVDs, posters - and the tip jar - so that those who can afford to support Amanda WHEN they can support Amanda can choose to do so of their own free will. If you can't afford to at a certain time, you don't miss out. As has been said on here before, she's asked people to rip her CDs and hand them out, she's fine with people downloading her music...if all of this is going to be so freely given, then there's got to be a compromise somewhere. Personally, I'd rather she asked outright that people support her when and if they can rather than all the time which would mean that for some, she would become inaccessible. I think she'll retain far more loyalty from fans that way than doing what a lot of other bands/artists seem to do and charge for the privilege of interaction (and we all know that interaction with AFP is way more than one would get with many others).

Again, apologies for the rambly nature of post, but that's the basic conclusion that Auds and I came to.

This would be awesome in a perfect world. What you have said is pretty much the way things are now - everything is free and everything else people buy when they can. I think we would all love it to stay the way it is. Unfortunately it isn't working. That model would be great if it gave you enough money to live on but when it doesn't where can you go next for cash? I don't think Amanda would ever go the route of some other bands and make everything user pays but she has to find other ways to make money so that she can continue as a performer.

Yeah, but surely that was the point of the blog in the first place? She's providing a defence for finding these ways to make money, and mentioning the money, and putting herself out there with a uke case (naked or no) for tips. The point I was making was that if she continues with the auctions, with the constant coming up with new plans (which she has been criticised for on the blog comments as well as in this thread) and also continues to ask for money, surely it's justified by the fact that we already get so much for nothing? If people are criticising her for asking for money, surely the justification there is everything I've mentioned above?

[Miss Sahara]

I'm not sure i like the idea that an artist's garage sale should be the only way of surviving for an artist... (unless having a webcast is equally as important to you as other ways of performance, it seems like devaluing your art somehow). doing it once is great. but on a regular basis? i don't know.

how about
you charge people for a webcast every now and then (so you split the money to a wider range of people instead of having a few who pay massive amounts no matter if they are actually able to...), and then everyone who participates enters a draw...to win the things you'd otherwise sell to one or two liquid fans..
it's cool because everyone could win
- if you have not much money
- if you have money but win anyway you save the money or just put it in the tip jar.
- and if you don't you still get a webcast party and there's always a next time

if there's...let's say.. 500 people willing to pay 10$ you make 5000 quite fast. and you maybe don't even have to give as much stuff away as during the last auction.

who wouldn't pay $10 for the chance of a dress used in the coin-o-b video, or a glass dildo om-nomed by afp?? and at the same time be sure this highly appreciated artist isn't starving? i would.

just an idea. i hope that made sense i am sooooooo tired right now!
xx

[stallionbreaker]

I'm not sure i like the idea that an artist's garage sale should be the only way of surviving for an artist... (unless having a webcast is equally as important to you as other ways of performance, it seems like devaluing your art somehow). doing it once is great. but on a regular basis? i don't know.

how about
you charge people for a webcast every now and then (so you split the money to a wider range of people instead of having a few who pay massive amounts no matter if they are actually able to...), and then everyone who participates enters a draw...to win the things you'd otherwise sell to one or two liquid fans..
it's cool because everyone could win
- if you have not much money
- if you have money but win anyway you save the money or just put it in the tip jar.
- and if you don't you still get a webcast party and there's always a next time

if there's...let's say.. 500 people willing to pay 10$ you make 5000 quite fast. and you maybe don't even have to give as much stuff away as during the last auction.

who wouldn't pay $10 for the chance of a dress used in the coin-o-b video, or a glass dildo om-nomed by afp?? and at the same time be sure this highly appreciated artist isn't starving? i would.

just an idea. i hope that made sense i am sooooooo tired right now!
xx

You do make sense I very much like the idea of an AFP webcast raffle. I wonder how that would work with getting it organized so that each person who gives their $10 gets on a list that can be chosen from by the end of the night (there are internet randomizers that will pull the proverbial name from the hat if you give it the numbers to choose from).

I love that this conversation ranges from philosophy to helpful suggestion and covers everything in between. Love it.

[BATTEREDxBRIDExLUVR!]

another thing i wanted to mention is that as far as the artist selling personal junk as opposed to "art;" i think we will see big changes to that when amanda gets dropped.

people have a problem with the musician selling things that aren't music but we should keep in mind that it is next to IMPOSSIBLE for amanda to do that right now because of the situation she is in with rr.

[CourtneyFG]

i still don't like the idea of paying for web casts.

i have a couple of reasons for this

 - you never know what you are going to get, you can't ask for a refund if what you have is amanda picking her nose for an hour ( and eventually amanda is going to run out of ideas to keep them entertaining)

 - a little thing called exchange rates, sure $10 is the USA isn't much, but in some places in the world (NZ) that's almost $15 which is allot if you are broke

 - Time zones, allot of people who used to rely on the archives to see the web casts are going to miss out, so again if you aren't in the USA ( where she is when she does a large portion of her web casts ) it is probable that you are going to miss out.


amanda is a big girl, and can make up her own mind about how to raise money, but if she is going to start charging for web casts, there are going to be alienated fans, and she's going to lose the connection with those fans that she likes to have.

and it's not just the fans feeling alienated from her, it's from the shadowbox as well, all the threads that talk about what happened in the web casts, or the jokes that go around ( the whole "om nom" thing) these are going to turn into 'inside' jokes, or 'you had to be there'.

people are going to be left out. from what i can tell allot of use here were or still even are those school children who were left out, the odd ones the strange ones, amanda brought us together, she entertained us and gave us this forum to hang out in, if paying for web casts is how it's going to go, it will end up being a case of who could afford to and did attend the web cast (the cool kids) and those who didn't ( the freaks) and we all know how bad it feels to be left out.

[MeAndMyCharms]

I like Kovac's idea of paying for webcasts. A non-archived webcast just for paying subscribers seems like a great way to go. Would you pay?

I probably wouldn't. It's not really something I can see working. What does Amanda do the whole time to justify charging people to watch it? Is it going to be a Q&A? Something she does for free on her twitter all the time..
What if people pay to watch it, get 10 minutes into it, get bored and want their money back? What happens then? What if there are technical problems, and let's face it, this kind of thing happens all the time. Do people get refunds? How will that work? All the things that CourtneyFG were saying were very good points too, regarding time zones and exchange rates.
The whole idea just seems so messy to me.
I can't stress enough how much of a bad idea I think this is. The people who are suggesting that the auctions are alienating fans in one breath, then turning around and endorsing a paid webcast in the next are doing my head in. To me, it's so incredibly obvious which option is the most alienating of all, and it's not the one that involves a free webcast for everybody.

I guess my big question is, are the auctions working? Is what Amanda currently doing working for her? If it is, why does it need to change?
I'm not too sure, but haven't there only been two auctions anyway? From what I can understand, these were just two things that Amanda has done to get some cash together to pay some bills. There will most likely be more in the future, but I don't think she intended it to be something she'll do on a regular basis as some people seem to think will happen. It's not like once a week she's going through her flat scavenging for items that she can sell off to anybody who will have it.
What's the problem with, what, 4 auctions a year? I originally thought it was a great idea, and after reading through everybody's arguments for and against, I still do

[Chris Con]

I like Kovac's idea of paying for webcasts. A non-archived webcast just for paying subscribers seems like a great way to go. Would you pay?

I probably wouldn't. It's not really something I can see working. What does Amanda do the whole time to justify charging people to watch it? Is it going to be a Q&A? Something she does for free on her twitter all the time..
What if people pay to watch it, get 10 minutes into it, get bored and want their money back? What happens then? What if there are technical problems, and let's face it, this kind of thing happens all the time. Do people get refunds? How will that work? All the things that CourtneyFG were saying were very good points too, regarding time zones and exchange rates.
The whole idea just seems so messy to me.
I can't stress enough how much of a bad idea I think this is. The people who are suggesting that the auctions are alienating fans in one breath, then turning around and endorsing a paid webcast in the next are doing my head in. To me, it's so incredibly obvious which option is the most alienating of all, and it's not the one that involves a free webcast for everybody.

I guess my big question is, are the auctions working? Is what Amanda currently doing working for her? If it is, why does it need to change?
I'm not too sure, but haven't there only been two auctions anyway? From what I can understand, these were just two things that Amanda has done to get some cash together to pay some bills. There will most likely be more in the future, but I don't think she intended it to be something she'll do on a regular basis as some people seem to think will happen. It's not like once a week she's going through her flat scavenging for items that she can sell off to anybody who will have it.
What's the problem with, what, 4 auctions a year? I originally thought it was a great idea, and after reading through everybody's arguments for and against, I still do

i agree with you. i dont like the idea of charging for webcasts or having to subscribe to them or whatever. i personally am not even a huge fan of the webcasts. sometimes i get bored. i'd probably end up feeling alienated too.

[Musings]

A good point has been made about how there have only been a few webcast auctions -- I think the reason that a lot of us are thinking of this as more than a few is because the way Amanda wrote the blog -- as sort of groundbreaking and encouraging new artists who are afraid and this is the way that artists will have to do it in the future -- not as a temporary fix.

I admit I know very little about her finances, and therefore I am in no position to advise her on that, really.  But I do know a bit about psychology and the way people respond to/think about money.

IF the webcasts are going to be charged for, like I mentioned before (when I was on the pay-per-webcast will alienate people side -- I'm a tricky person, and this is a tricky issue, I'm still not sure where I stand, exactly), then they would have be much more planned ordeals, like concerts, even if it is just Amanda at her home piano, playing for a while.  And not everyone can go to a concert, not everyone is in the right time zone for a concert, not everyone can afford a concert, and concerts and meetups still get talked about on the SBx.  Sorry, but it's true.

[CeeGBee]

For every person who is saying "Amen", how many are putting money/willing to put money behind what they say? 

Ummmm....  "willing"? irrespective of "able"?

[Cecily]

So I do not have the stamina to read all the pages of comments on this.  I tried to skim each one.  And I don't know why, but I feel compelled to chime in.  First my thoughts bullet pointed...

• I have no problem with AFP talking about money or asking for it.
• I personally would not pay for a webcast
• I feel sad when I can't afford auction items, but love the fact that I can watch the auction
• I am new on here, actually I am new to AFP fandom (just under a year).  I hate the idea that because I did not have knowledge of The Dresdon Dolls, I am not a high enough quality of fan.  I haven't had any of that sort of thing directed at me, but I have heard of it on several boards now, and the idea of it makes me ill.
• I love the fact that Amanda is in touch with her fans.  That she seems to actually care what her fans think.  And that she isn't afraid to speak her mind.
• I am perplexed by the idea that people think they have the right to tell others what they can or can not blog about.  If AFP has something she wants to say, then I would like to listen.  I don't have to agree or like it.  I read her blog to know how she feels.

Lastly a few comments on some of the things I have read.

(Kovacs)I don't see how hero worship (ideally the healthy kind, you could argue) didn't come into play as part of their reason for buying.

I think there is a lot of grey area between liking someone enough to buy a CD and having to have some sort of hero worship to want to buy something in an auction.  Sometime people simply buy something in an auction to help the cause.  Sometimes, they really want to product.  Sometimes, the item might be linked to a particular part of their lives that is symbolizes something for them, and they would like the memento.  There are so many options and possibilities to why.

(totalfrog)I know that Amanda has to eat and has to pay her rent but I am starting to get a little annoyed at the constant guilt trip about her bank balance

I have not once felt that Amanda's talk about money has been in anyway a guilt trip.
I find the information interesting and giving.  How many celebs/artist actually talk shop with the public.  I feel honored that AFP respects us enough to share her personal business with us.  And while her art is her business, it is still personal.  She does not need to disclose any of that to us, I feel grateful that she respects us enough to put herself out there.

I mean even this conversation.  She tweeted about it, because while our opinions are not deal breakers for her, she respects them and wants to hear them.  And I find that admirable.

(Kovacs)- I find it reeeeeally interesting that a lot of people are saying "If people want to pay that much in the auctions, let them" and "I wouldn't pay for a webcast" in the same statement. All the legitimate reasons to not want to pay aside, it's interesting, isn't it? I mean, the crux of the blog was "I'm not afraid to ask for your money". Not "I'm not afraid to allow the hardcore fans to pay for my rent" (though that was part of it).

If the new model is going to be to make money for these sorts of things, are you behind it, or not?

I don't mean to be too blunt, but here is another issue in which there is an assertion of black or white.  Life isn't black or white.  People can be ok with a web-auction and not ok with paying for a webcast.  They are in fact two separate things, so two separate opinions are ok.

[Pope Totalfrog]

• I am new on here, actually I am new to AFP fandom (just under a year).  I hate the idea that because I did not have knowledge of The Dresdon Dolls, I am not a high enough quality of fan.  I haven't had any of that sort of thing directed at me, but I have heard of it on several boards now, and the idea of it makes me ill.

No one here will make you feel that way. We like new people. And new fans are a good thing - don't let anyone tell you different.

(totalfrog)I know that Amanda has to eat and has to pay her rent but I am starting to get a little annoyed at the constant guilt trip about her bank balance

I have not once felt that Amanda's talk about money has been in anyway a guilt trip.
If the new model is going to be to make money for these sorts of things, are you behind it, or not?

This is where things become subjective. I feel guilty for not being able to pay more than I do because I really do think that Amanda deserves it. At the moment I am the brokest I have ever been in my life. It was a poor choice of words and I should have made myself more clear. For me hearing about money all the time is not a good thing right now.
I am 100% behind Amanda and her projects and I would support any model that was sustainable and made her the cash she deserves (unless she suddenly becomes some sort of crazy person who wants us all to make love to sheep. Somehow I don't think that is going to happen - but it would win her fans in New Zealand.)

[Rob]

What do you think the sheep song is about?

[Cecily]

This is where things become subjective. I feel guilty for not being able to pay more than I do because I really do think that Amanda deserves it. At the moment I am the brokest I have ever been in my life. It was a poor choice of words and I should have made myself more clear. For me hearing about money all the time is not a good thing right now.
I am 100% behind Amanda and her projects and I would support any model that was sustainable and made her the cash she deserves (unless she suddenly becomes some sort of crazy person who wants us all to make love to sheep. Somehow I don't think that is going to happen - but it would win her fans in New Zealand.)

I am in the same boat.  I used to feel guilty constantly, especially if I went somewhere and someone was asking for money and I had none to give.  It was a huge step for me to be ok with giving when I have it and not giving when I don't.  When my money issues are back anywhere near in the black, then I will give again, until then, I feel confident no one is going to judge me.  At least no one that I need to care a rats ass about.   

[Kovacs]

(totalfrog)I know that Amanda has to eat and has to pay her rent but I am starting to get a little annoyed at the constant guilt trip about her bank balance

(Kovacs)- I find it reeeeeally interesting that a lot of people are saying "If people want to pay that much in the auctions, let them" and "I wouldn't pay for a webcast" in the same statement. All the legitimate reasons to not want to pay aside, it's interesting, isn't it? I mean, the crux of the blog was "I'm not afraid to ask for your money". Not "I'm not afraid to allow the hardcore fans to pay for my rent" (though that was part of it).

If the new model is going to be to make money for these sorts of things, are you behind it, or not?

I don't mean to be too blunt, but here is another issue in which there is an assertion of black or white.  Life isn't black or white.  People can be ok with a web-auction and not ok with paying for a webcast.  They are in fact two separate things, so two separate opinions are ok.

Don't worry about being too blunt. I can take it. And welcome. 

My only response to that is I didn't mean to imply that two different opinions are not "ok".  I suppose I just found the overall opposition to the pay-webcast surprising, since everyone is in support of continuing the auctions (and in support of supporting artists with cash in ways they noramlly wouldn't), which are fairly unstable as a business model. They don't really spread the impact out over the fan community.

Anyways, to elaborate on paid webcasts and throw some more ideas out there.
- You're all correct. 10 bucks is far too much, in retrospect.
- You're all correct. The free webcasts/content shouldn't stop (and I didn't intend to imply they would, though I can see how it came across that way)

I envision a paid webcast to be like this (as an example): 1-2 new songs have been written and are performable. Covers, new songs, whatever. Instead of debuting them at a venue, debut them in a paid webcast. In my mind, that's less alienating and less exclusive than premireing the songs live, where only a select amount of people get to see them.



I can see an objection being that something like this should be free, but then you really aren't agreeing with the essence of the blog. I would definitely pay 3-5 bucks to see a song debuted live, from one of my favorite bands. Would you feel alienated if you couldn't? Any more alienated than if you saw a youtube brodcast of a live song being debuted elsewhere? Would it be worth the money to get to see that debut live(ish)?



I mean, hell, for years everything happened in Boston. I never felt alienated. A bit jealous, in a good way, but not excluded.

[Agonistes]

some things i thought of....


--auctions ARE a free webcast.  you don't have to buy anything to enjoy them.  i watched the auction, myself, with glee, but i didn't buy anything because i was not completely in the black at the moment.  however, i had a blast watching it anyway, and laughed a lot.

--someone is always going to be left out, no matter what gets sold.  something will come along that someone cant afford, it's what happens when you ask for money for stuff.  sometimes people will be able to afford concert tickets, but not a tee shirt.  sometimes people won't be able to get tickets because they are sold out or they just had to drop two hundred bucks on their dog for emergency anal stitches or something.  sometimes people won't be able to buy the glass dildo, or the signed book, or the tee shirt amanda used to wipe sweat off beth's decolletage, or whatever...no matter HOW much they might want it.  that's life; sometimes, people will be left out.  however, a webcast is a webcast, and with all the clever people out there in internet land, i am certain that an ex post facto copy of the webcast will more than likely be available for those who had to miss it due to cash, time zone, or age/job/money/stingy parent restrictions.  they just might miss the song request portion, or the interactive parts, or whatever part was live, and the incentive to pay.  the point is, with a webcast, paid download, open and shameless plea for cash without any real reason, passing a hat at a concert, or homemade porn, or whatever is done for money, the object is trying to reach as many as possible who can reach back with cash.  not exclusion, surely.......just business.

--someone will always be available who can, or will, pay.  hell, i tried to offer money without incentive on twitter when amanda tweeted a couple months ago she was trying to pay rent in the first place.  my rationale was, it was the least i could do after the near religious experience i had at a concert last spring (long story, but it was what i needed at the exact time i needed it--and someone else bought the tickets for me that night, incidentally).  the thing about creative financing is it has to be creative.  i couldn't imagine amanda doing regular paid webcasts; she might as well sign up to be on a shitcom on tv, and shitcan being a musician at all if she goes that way.  maybe learn some magic tricks or something, or a tap dancing segment...heh, kidding.  but i can see how a few, or one of them would work.  much like the auction worked; although again, couldn't see one happening every week.  the thing about creative financing is, the answer's in the question; it has to stay creative.  and, if i have come to expect one thing from ms. palmer & crew, it is creativity.

--as far as being young and missing out on some paid events......well, i hate that, but again, there is enough free out there to keep one happy, i would think.  here i go, i hate hearing myself even say this, but 'when i was sixteen', i had to sneak into the violent femmes concert.  i had to beg a misfits tee shirt off a girlfriend, and i also sneaked into a cyndi lauper concert.  i sold my jacket to go to one show, and it has been whispered that i liberated a twenty from mom's purse now and then to manage this or that venue.  i didn't actually officially buy myself a concert ticket until i was well into my twenties, i am pretty sure, because between school and life, there was never any money for fun (after the weed was purchased of course).  i wished like hell i had then the mediums available nowadays to enjoy venues and musicians i had to miss sometimes (imagine life without shadowboxes, twitter, or even decent radio stations, except the fuzzy college station no one listened to because 'alternative' actually meant 'shit no one has heard of), because 'solid gold' was a horrible show and never hosted the folks i liked to listen to on the college station.  mtv was cool back then, though, that was a bright spot in a hard world to find good music (that wasn't in the top 40) in.  

the thing about it now is, no one has to miss anything that has been recorded, ever.  just ask youtube to bring it to you.

[The Angel Raliel]

If the webcasts became more structured and became more of an online discussion show/chatshow format with guests (showcasing artists and musicians work) i can see paying or donating being a viable route....the party on the internet type things and the two online auctions would not work consitently as a pay per view format. Also the major problem with paying online assumes that the bulk of the audience have the means and methods of being able to pay online.....

[Andy Pants]

I have no strong opinions on this.

[Mr. Leave Me Alone]

Rachael (blazingfirefly) has already posted my thoughts on this because she posted about a discussion we had about it.
A lot of artists charge for you to watch their stuff, read their blogs and well...to be a fan. And I've seen it become an elitist thing too...'I'm a member of the official fan club, I pay £20 a month, I'm a bigger, better fan than you or anyone else.' (which doesn't mean a lot, really. Just 'I can afford to spend money on reading some stuff someone else wrote on a web page' and I think the charging for webcasts thing is quite similar) and the artist is rarely as close with the fans as Amanda is with hers. It would break my heart to see that ruined because it's made a huge effect on lots of people.

I'm probably not going to bother reading this or posting here again, to be perfectly honest. It won't bother me unless any of these things actually happen. So if anyone does reply to this (whether in agreement or to say that I'm a rambling idiot), I probably won't see it.

[darkling]

Oh god this is hard. There is not going to be a right answer and I do so like right answers. It's that symbiotic relationship again - I need her to have money to live and make art so that I can have her art which I need to live  Here follow incoherent thoughts:

Occasionally I have caught myself thinking that Amanda seems at times to spend a lot of time specifically generating money, and wishing she could just concentrate on the music. I'm not proud and I recognise that's simpleminded. I also find myself wishing that she'd come back to Australia soon, as I'm beginning to forget how awesome she is, and she is very awesome, which leads to...

I love that there is so much in the internet smorgasbord. Time zones and 9-5 jobs put me out of the webcasts, but I still love that they are there. I love that there are all these other options to let me submerge in the Amandaverse at will (twitter & twitpics, ARG, blogs, youtube, postwartrade stuff...). The bonus extra reward to Amanda fandom is connection and it is very accessible. Let people participate however they want to and pity those who have to compulsivly read absolutely everything for they shall never sleep. Caveat: the live experience needs to exist (and is it all sustainable?)

I had an odd moment after a show when I realised I'd thrown more into the Danger Ensemble's boot than I'd spent on the ticket price, when Amanda had been apologising about the venue set ticket price in the first place. I would have liked more money to go her way. I don't know how to fix this. Would throwing random money into a virtual tip hat would really make a difference - but a girl only needs so many t-shirts. Sometimes the fan base seems to throb with cries of "feed me". I want a way to support Amanda while striking the comfortable space between that and charity.

Now I've typed Amanda so many times that it looks like Am-And-A, so I'm going to stop. But yes, don't be afraid to take my money, I need you to.

 

[CourtneyFG]

I had an odd moment after a show when I realised I'd thrown more into the Danger Ensemble's boot than I'd spent on the ticket price, when Amanda had been apologising about the venue set ticket price in the first place. I would have liked more money to go her way.
 

i too, was going to mention this in my post but i couldn't find the right place for it in my rant.

for those who don't know. amanda palmer fans were swindled out of money at the brisbane show for the australian leg of her tour. amanda strives to keep ticket prices under the $30 mark so as to make her shows more accessible. however she was shocked to find out and apologized profusely for the fact the the tickets for the brisbane show cost over $50+bf (which i'm assuming the venue took most of)

to compensate for this and to help the DE allot of us did contribute more then the price of the ticket when the tip boots were being passed around.

even though her touring has slowed at the moment i think a boot/hat/stocking/jar, should be passed around at all shows for those to contribute who can and want to.

$30 is cheep and so is $50, in comparison to allot of other gigs for other artists i have been to, so i don't mind chipping in the extra money, especially since seeing amanda live, is the highlight of all the bands i have ever seen (and i've seen allot of bands)

[Agonistes]

If the webcasts became more structured and became more of an online discussion show/chatshow format with guests (showcasing artists and musicians work) i can see paying or donating being a viable route....the party on the internet type things and the two online auctions would not work consitently as a pay per view format. Also the major problem with paying online assumes that the bulk of the audience have the means and methods of being able to pay online.....

sometimes, and definitely in this situation, retail can be an astonishing gauge of market.  i have often measured advertising effectiveness, general world state of affairs (meaning, are we all broke this week or not), and just plain popularity in mere tee shirts.  for example, the number of LOFNOTC shirts that flew out of thin air in one evening, without warning, for a quarter of a bill...that was an impressive number.

but, as was said, 'a girl can only have so many tee shirts.'  considering the response to that night, though, and also considering that, had they somehow miraculously been able to offer the shirts for three to five bucks, i would imagine the response would have been even more overwhelming.  the word 'webcast' has been tossed around as a possibility, but it's only an idea; what's more interesting to me is the fact that there is a discussion at all between a fanbase and its icon as to how to establish an entirely new relationship of give and take.  as in any balanced relationship, both sides have to evenly give and take, or one side of course feels put out and unappreciated.

but, there's only one amanda, and a fuckload of us, so in the end, no matter what amanda ends up doing, there will be a percentage of people not reached, utilized, satisfied, inundated to their specifications, or recognized.  what's encouraging is that i'm seeing the people asking for support try their damndest to keep everyone happy as much of the time as possible, which should honestly be taken into account considering the undertaking that is.  mistakes can, do, and will happen, like the thing with the books, or other stuff i can't think of, but i also saw everyone involved with the books shagging ass to fix it and apologizing the whole way to get people what they paid for (and keep them excited about it), and fix it again if what they got wasn't right.

i see a webcast as something that might work well once, maybe twice.  what's hard to come up with is something that can be done continuously and generate enough income to justify it's existence as a 'product', and also stimulates the fan base enough to make it worth paying for....because let's be honest; the things that work great spontaneously won't always work when they become commonplace, and it's almost not worth the challenge to have to be completely original each time you need an influx of cash.

i think raffles are an excellent idea, too.  i'm of the opinion that the best thing any icon could offer a fan is personal time.  i don't know whether the imagery of raffling off a dinner date or a jam session or a slumber party or even a phone call or whatever is exactly the right one, but i know i'd drop cash on a chance to have a quiet, non-rushed conversation with a lot of people i admire.  meeting them at a venue or a quick handshake is great, but it's also a lot of pressure; a fan has like five seconds to blurt something gushy and lame, and the person being met also has one chance with that individual to not roll their eyes from tiredness and have it taken as boredom or disdain or whatever.

wow, i am all over this thread (and all over the place with the rambling).  sorry if i seem bombastic or redundant.  the subject of art = cash is a really interesting one to me, though.

[Cecily]

I think I can finally put to words why paying for a webcast doesn't interest me.  Something I respect about Amanda is she is using the internet to share her art.  She never has a problem with people uploading youtube clips.  She frequently does so herself.  She is constantly using the web for all it's worth to touch her fanbase.  It's free.  People then decide to to go to the next step and purchase her album or book or go to a concert.  Doing a paid webcast seems to contradict all that work she has been doing to share her art.  I by no means can say for sure, but I would guess that she has gotten a lot of fans because of that freeness in using the internet.

Also, the idea of watching a 'concert' on the web, just really doesn't interest me.  I watched the auction, because that was her and Beth talking and being goofy.  I am just not much for sitting in front of my computer to watch what IMHO should be live.  I adore seeing her live.  If there was anyway I could afford it I would go to the NYC, Philly, and Falls Church shows, but that just ain't gonna happen. 

[Kenny Wisdom]

God, I was so hoping the art would take me away from my bills and my skintness and the wolves at my door and the man who wants the shirt from my back and all the other shitty 1001 reasons I have to get up every day.

But it didn't, in the end, did it?

Do what you have to do, AFP, just stop bleating it from the rooftops.

I might start resenting you.

[darkling]

Do what you have to do, AFP, just stop bleating it from the rooftops.

I might start resenting you.

Ouch. Though I will concede that this is the bit that I am quasi-uncomfortable with. I can hear my mother's voice telling me that it's uncouth to speak about money so openly. I could also see people who live on a fixed budget and need to make very careful spending decisions becoming resentful if Amanda isn't quite 'starving' enough (there's that nasty idea again), particularly when some of these individual events are earning some people's anual incomes.

In the end it just makes the whole equation messy - I don't want to know the numbers.- but I understand that Ms Palmer wishes to be open in her trailblazing to show the path to other artists, so I'll deal. I wonder if anyone has been as open back - has anyone in a signing line just handed over cash without the safety of a tipping hat?   

[CeeGBee]

Do what you have to do, AFP, just stop bleating it from the rooftops.

I might start resenting you.

Ouch. Though I will concede that this is the bit that I am quasi-uncomfortable with. I can hear my mother's voice telling me that it's uncouth to speak about money so openly. I could also see people who live on a fixed budget and need to make very careful spending decisions becoming resentful if Amanda isn't quite 'starving' enough (there's that nasty idea again), particularly when some of these individual events are earning some people's anual incomes.

In the end it just makes the whole equation messy - I don't want to know the numbers.- but I understand that Ms Palmer wishes to be open in her trailblazing to show the path to other artists, so I'll deal. I wonder if anyone has been as open back - has anyone in a signing line just handed over cash without the safety of a tipping hat?   

I'm of slightly mixed feelings here... 
On the one hand it is generally considered tacky to talk about the money with your customers (which, in this context is us).

On the other, I'm pretty sure it is to everyone's benefit (except a few asshats who run record companies, and they can all
find jobs flippin' burgers) if The Industry cuts out a whole lot of middlemen, and for that to happen, people like Amanda, who
are making it work for themselves (to a greater or lesser degree), need to spread the word...

This is why, as many have pointed out in recent years, Well-Behaved Women Seldom Make History.

So, for what my opinion's worth, Amanda should go right on flashing her financial knickers, and I'll try not
to cringe too much when she does it...

[virtual~mary]

I envision a paid webcast to be like this (as an example): 1-2 new songs have been written and are performable. Covers, new songs, whatever. Instead of debuting them at a venue, debut them in a paid webcast. In my mind, that's less alienating and less exclusive than premireing the songs live, where only a select amount of people get to see them.

I can see an objection being that something like this should be free, but then you really aren't agreeing with the essence of the blog. I would definitely pay 3-5 bucks to see a song debuted live, from one of my favorite bands. Would you feel alienated if you couldn't? Any more alienated than if you saw a youtube brodcast of a live song being debuted elsewhere? Would it be worth the money to get to see that debut live(ish)?

i like the idea, kovacs, and you're right, it would be more inclusive than debuting songs at a live show in one place with one audience. i would pay a reasonable fee to stream exclusive content (non-archivable) of this nature.

with regard to an auction webcast, no, i would not pay an entry fee. i tuned in to one of afp's auctions (2nd one) long enough to satisfy my curiosity, but didn't bid on what i saw. i don't go for personal effects, but might bid on an exclusive piece of art by the artist either offered directly or for a worthwhile cause.

[Rob]

I mean, hell, for years everything happened in Boston. I never felt alienated. A bit jealous, in a good way, but not excluded.

Yeah...me neither...

[The Angel Raliel]

Thought just in............
why not create events under Amanda's name which are designed to promote her art and raise her money....this seems like an ideal opportunity for the Brigade to do things..... some years ago i organised Fuck The Back Row UK....no money was made from that but there is no reason why money cannot be generated for the artist without the artist being there....

anyone up for organising an AfP based money making event?

[Kardemumma]

Thought just in............
why not create events under Amanda's name which are designed to promote her art and raise her money....this seems like an ideal opportunity for the Brigade to do things..... some years ago i organised Fuck The Back Row UK....no money was made from that but there is no reason why money cannot be generated for the artist without the artist being there....

anyone up for organising an AfP based money making event?

I think this is a marvelous idea. I've been promoting Amanda in Finland as hard as I can and thinking what more I could do. The fanbase here is small so I don't know what we could do to make any money, but it might work in other places. For example, get a cheap venue, get local bands to play covers... If the money made is a small amount (or even none at all) such event might lead into someone discovering the music and buying merch and eventually will benefit AFP.

[The Angel Raliel]

plus Amanda Palmer fan art gallery and sales (money split between artist and Amanda) and as you say, even if it does not make any real money...it is a good promotional tool....the world of twitter etc makes advertising such an event ridiulously easy

[MeAndMyCharms]

Do what you have to do, AFP, just stop bleating it from the rooftops.

I might start resenting you.

I think quite a bit of all this drama is coming from the way individuals are interpreting what Amanda tweets/blogs about. So many people are up in arms about Amanda talking about money all the time, saying it's tacky, it's rude, it makes them uncomfortable, and so on.
But of all the times Amanda has said anything about this subject, I have not once taken it as a "oh, look at all the money I'm making" kind of statement. It wasn't until this blog was written that I realised so many people were. I honestly read it as more of a "this is the future, it can be done, learn from me" kind of thing...

[CeeGBee]

plus Amanda Palmer fan art gallery and sales (money split between artist and Amanda) and as you say, even if it does not make any real money...it is a good promotional tool....the world of twitter etc makes advertising such an event ridiulously easy

Dangerously close to "Celebrity Endorsement Deals".....

[The Angel Raliel]

nah.... just fans doing events beause they want to?

[Musings]

The Matthew Ebel dude does pretty much everything Kovacs talks about...

[kulturekid]

While I can appreciate all the creative new ventures in money making schemes, fan adoration auctions included (anyone want to buy the set list off of Amanda's piano, signed by Amanda, Brian, and Pope from the Boston DVD shoot?  Kidding, its not for sale), I have a brilliant idea!!!  Kiss and make up, and then get the fucking band back together and hit the road!

[BATTEREDxBRIDExLUVR!]

While I can appreciate all the creative new ventures in money making schemes, fan adoration auctions included (anyone want to buy the set list off of Amanda's piano, signed by Amanda, Brian, and Pope from the Boston DVD shoot?  Kidding, its not for sale), I have a brilliant idea!!!  Kiss and make up, and then get the fucking band back together and hit the road!

Wow, why didn't Amanda think of that? I think you're onto something! I'm so glad we have you to offer such simple solutions to these vast, complicated problems.

[Goodbye-Umbrella]

the red paintings asked for donations so they could release 'feed the wolf', juke baritone and the swamp dogs, asked people to preorder their new album so they could actually afford to release it.

i think when people are giving money for a direct cause (eg. new album, dvd ect.) it makes a lot f sense. you're contributing so that a piece of art can made, whereas it may not have if the artist couldn't afford to make it.

this is why i'm more than happy to buy direct from amanda (in terms of cd's merch ect) even if it costs more, because it is actually going towards her- i'm paying the artist for the art they make.

the auctions are a little different to this. it's not a direct trade for art (unless you consider the stuff that was being auctioned art)... i think i would feel comfortable buying one of the things from the auction if i knew that money was going towards funding for some kind of tour, new album, dvd ect.
it's good that she is so open about where it goes, and says 'i needed to pay my rent'- and thats fair enough. i mean you need to pay your rent, and if people are happy to buy stuff from the auction for it, everyone wins i guess.

if it were my choice i think if i was going to auction memorabilia or whatever, it would be directly for the sake of a new album or something, and i'd use to money from selling the albums (direct to fans of course) to pay the rent.

but thats just me, it's her life/career, so ultimately its her choice, and though i would maybe do things a little differently, i don't think there's anything wrong with how she's doing stuff- i'm more than happy to support an musician i love, if t means they can keep doing what they're doing and bring a little hope to the world of pop music- god knows it needs some

[insignifikunt]

I think keeping the webcasts free with a greater emphasis on a tip jar is the way to go. Even just donating through paypal...

Also I think Amanda should record her live shows more and sell the recordings at the gigs after the show. So if you pay $10 and give someone your email address they can send you a link for a digital download, or like $15 and get the CD... I think the Pixies did this. They recorded the show and burnt a shit load of copies and sold them at the merch table as people were leaving...

Maybe she could even webcast an actual gig for a tip...

[misc]

Also I think Amanda should record her live shows more and sell the recordings at the gigs after the show. So if you pay $10 and give someone your email address they can send you a link for a digital download, or like $15 and get the CD... I think the Pixies did this. They recorded the show and burnt a shit load of copies and sold them at the merch table as people were leaving...

Definitely! I bought a load of the Pixies Live CDs from their reunion tour a few years ago. I can't imagine it can be too costly to do a soundboard recording and sell the MP3/FLAC for £10, as a sort of legal bootleg. Aside from the cost of recording equipment and hosting the files, it's pretty much pure profit.

I reckon burning the CDs on site to take home right away might be a bit trickier and more expensive - depending on the numbers involved, although I guess anything's possible. PWEI did this with CDs (and even DVDs later on) for their reformation tour and I seem to remember think there was quite a wait involved to pick up discs after the show.

[insignifikunt]

Also I think Amanda should record her live shows more and sell the recordings at the gigs after the show. So if you pay $10 and give someone your email address they can send you a link for a digital download, or like $15 and get the CD... I think the Pixies did this. They recorded the show and burnt a shit load of copies and sold them at the merch table as people were leaving...

Definitely! I bought a load of the Pixies Live CDs from their reunion tour a few years ago. I can't imagine it can be too costly to do a soundboard recording and sell the MP3/FLAC for £10, as a sort of legal bootleg. Aside from the cost of recording equipment and hosting the files, it's pretty much pure profit.

I reckon burning the CDs on site to take home right away might be a bit trickier and more expensive - depending on the numbers involved, although I guess anything's possible. PWEI did this with CDs (and even DVDs later on) for their reformation tour and I seem to remember think there was quite a wait involved to pick up discs after the show.

Amanda stays behind until ridiculous o'cock signing shit and taking photos, so is it really that much to ask fans to stick around to buy the CD?

[Morpheus Laughing]

Also I think Amanda should record her live shows more and sell the recordings at the gigs after the show.

Do any bands do the instant Cd thing?

A friend told me that Pearl Jam record all their performances and then sell these on their site, but I haven’t heard of on-the-night sales. It’s an interesting idea.

Only problems I can think of, which might not be problems are; (1)getting a cd writer that produces CD’s relatively quickly and also produces cd’s that have longevity. (2) boosting the overall cd volume (& other audio nuances), which is usually part of the mastering process (although in principle a compromise can be reached that doesn’t require mastering as such and might be acceptable for live recordings).

Additionally: we (me and friend) actually discussed the pearl jam thing the day after the union chapel gig and decided that there are probably enough talented DD/AFP fans around who are capable of recording professional footage/audio. Apparently Pearljam get their crew to do it.

[bjacques]

Instant CDs? Einstürzende Neubauten did this on their last tour. They'd have a nintermission and you could plunk down yer money (€20,- I think) and get a receipt and at the end you collected yer CD(s).

I'd szy keep the webcasts free, and archive them for a day or two for those of us in the wrong timezones, and keep the tip jar running.

[Morpheus Laughing]

In principle, instant CD's, are a good idea but worth researching well. Sometimes print-on-demand things are unreliable, but I’m sure there are good ways of going about it.

I can think of local bands with smudging printed surfaces on the CD’s and CD’s that after a year or so develop glitches. However, you can get high quality printable/writable CDs that are resistant to developing glitches and there are machines that seal in the ink with a protective coating. These were not print-at-venue CD’s but from companies who used certain types of short-run methods. Even so, it demonstrates that there are a number of potential pitfalls with short-run equipment.

I’ve personally had problems with a printer/writer at work that was very delicate. It wouldn’t print properly unless the surface it stood on was sufficiently flat and immovable. It was also bulky which meant that moving it made it susceptible to calibration problems. Don’t get me wrong, it was great seeing it manufacture 50 CD’s or so in a couple hours, and it was sufficient to produce mostly expendable promotional CD’s, but I would need some assurances if I was selling it’s output.

[The Angel Raliel]

a more unusual and retro approach would be to sell the sheet music and lyrics to individual songs, packaged like victorian song sheets...... these could be produced very cheaply and distributed rather easily....

[insignifikunt]

Sheet music is already available to buy though.

I think if there was an issue with having CDs of the live performance on sale at the end of the gig, then just pay for the recording AT the gig and submit your email address (another way of Amanda getting email addresses) and once it's been mastered if that's how people would prefer it you get the link sent to you. Hopefully it'd be high quality mp3 or lossless! Sure it'll get shared but hopefully Amanda can make some money out of it.

If people preferred the physical copy then they pay extra for the actual CD and then for shipping to your area. I'd much prefer physical but that's just me.

[Morpheus Laughing]

If people preferred the physical copy then they pay extra for the actual CD and then for shipping to your area. I'd much prefer physical but that's just me.

I would prefer a physical copy but would just as likely buy digital....

I’m also fairly sure that some people would pay to get a photo taken by a pro when they meet Amanda at signings. I have a decent SLR camera but I never bring it to gigs because it might get damaged or stolen; this means I never get great pictures of anything. Not really a problem for the performance because there are plenty of people taking photo’s of that, but this is not the case at signings.

It needn’t replace fan photography, but I have wondered about it. I suppose the objection might be that it makes the experience less personal and more like a theme park type thing. I don’t know - maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t.       

[Zomino]

Also I think Amanda should record her live shows more and sell the recordings at the gigs after the show. So if you pay $10 and give someone your email address they can send you a link for a digital download, or like $15 and get the CD... I think the Pixies did this. They recorded the show and burnt a shit load of copies and sold them at the merch table as people were leaving...

Tori Amos did this (digital only though) for select nights on her '07 tour: Click here for more info

Personally, I'd really like to be able to get a copy of the NYE Boston Pops show since I can't be there!

[Agonistes]

it would be cool to personalize some sales, such as packs of sheet music, with personal object, such as scraps of paper lyrics got scribbled on that became songs, and so on.  i know i have a box full of drawings and outlines that i throw in one place as i work, and it is fun for friends to go through it from time to time and say, 'oh i remember when you did that' or 'oh theres that one in the picture book' and there are stories i can tell about them.  something like that might be nice to throw into a special item to further specialize it.  it's collectible to the people it is collectible to, part of the creative process, which is something we only get to see in recordings at studios if the artists happen to record themselves or whatever.  i think a coffee/wine-stained scrap of paper with the initial scribbles crossed-out words and scratchings and doodles of lil headless guys or monkeys or ponies or whatever one draws while one writes would be neat to include with the prettiness of a set of music sheets, or something.  while underpants and dildoes are great fun and make me smile, i think being able to look into (and touch) the creative process is something that people would treasure.

r. crumb once traded a briefcase full of composition books full of doodles from the sixties for a million-dollar house in france, after all.

[beth of all trades]

We considered doing live recordings at shows but 1) label issues and 2) the equipment to burn and package CDs on the spot is expensive, plus you need to have someone running the equipment (adding another crew member, expensive) AND there's too much chance for something to go wrong.  We're a small operation and it's important to keep it simple.

As for the order-now-get-later thing--- I would rather never run another preorder.  At the merch table, it makes me much, much happier to be able to take someone's money and hand them their merch and have the transaction be OVER so we can all go on with our lives.

[J_Beck]

If people preferred the physical copy then they pay extra for the actual CD and then for shipping to your area. I'd much prefer physical but that's just me.

I would prefer a physical copy but would just as likely buy digital....

I’m also fairly sure that some people would pay to get a photo taken by a pro when they meet Amanda at signings. I have a decent SLR camera but I never bring it to gigs because it might get damaged or stolen; this means I never get great pictures of anything. Not really a problem for the performance because there are plenty of people taking photo’s of that, but this is not the case at signings.

It needn’t replace fan photography, but I have wondered about it. I suppose the objection might be that it makes the experience less personal and more like a theme park type thing. I don’t know - maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t.       

To do that right you will need some lights, mono lights probably and a backdrop would be nice, so there is a few hundred.  (The monolights would be as expensive as a good flash and give you much better results so that's a no brainer.)  Next is the camera, with a crop sensor you can get away with a 50 prime, so that could be just 100, but the body you will want to be one that can take abuse, both from use and physical since it is on tour.  Then you also need a back up (cameras break and at the worst times always) of the same brand and depending what you are using to fire off the lights.  The best bet would be 2 used D2X's since but in good condition since after the D3 these can be had for under 1,000, and their shutters have long lives.  Otherwise brand's semi pro camera will do.  So that plus lenses is 2k, then I a guessing someone has a laptop and can create a simple profile in light room or aperture to do light post processing.  Then a nice photo printer which will be a few hundred, if you want archival 8x10's say that will be 500+.

This could be done on the cheap with a 100 dollar mono light from B&H and using the pop up flash on the lowest setting to trigger them (or one of the little strobes that go in the hot shoe) and any DSLR, the lenses are cheap new so that isn't an issue.  But none of that gear is for day in and day out abuse, hell I have personally burned through a D50 shutter it isn't that hard. 

Oh and no worries about bringing cameras especially to Amanda's gigs, there are tons around so you wont be alone and people are usually very respective towards you.  As for damage I never felt that there was a chance at her shows mine that would be.  Even at Metal shows people around the mosh pit would notice you and keep it away.

[Morpheus Laughing]

We considered doing live recordings at shows but 1) label issues and 2) the equipment to burn and package CDs on the spot is expensive, plus you need to have someone running the equipment (adding another crew member, expensive) AND there's too much chance for something to go wrong.  We're a small operation and it's important to keep it simple.

Yes. Very expensive for even the basic equipment, which makes it very tempting to take shortcuts and buy inferior products that can’t really make CD’s to the standard you expect. Terribly stressful when it goes wrong and you’ve got to speed-read the manual. You would need to be well prepared to even think about taking something like that on the road.  Wise Choice, at least for now.

Oh and no worries about bringing cameras especially to Amanda's gigs, there are tons around so you wont be alone and people are usually very respective towards you.  As for damage I never felt that there was a chance at her shows mine that would be.  Even at Metal shows people around the mosh pit would notice you and keep it away.

I was worried about not getting in with the SLR Camera but that doesn’t seem to stop others and might not be much of an issue anymore. I think I would be ok with the Camera in the venues but the journeys leave me worried. Ha! Heading back from the union chapel gig, I got my bag lodged in the tube-train door.   

I thought it might be possible to try and get local fans with photography expertise to do the pictures and perhaps have a 50/50 split. But yes, instantaneous photos would require some additional equipment. Now that Beth has explained what the situation is, it seems unlikely that photos would be any more convenient than audio in terms of pre-order. 

Thanks for the insight.

[Zomino]

I thought it might be possible to try and get local fans with photography expertise to do the pictures and perhaps have a 50/50 split. But yes, instantaneous photos would require some additional equipment. Now that Beth has explained what the situation is, it seems unlikely that photos would be any more convenient than audio in terms of pre-order. 
Thanks for the insight.

There are mobile photo printers, around $200-300, that don't even need a laptop if you have a compatible camera. Canon, for example

If it's any help I would gladly volunteer my time to help achieve any "instant merch" goals, albeit remotely from the West coast.

[Kovacs]

Whoever mentioned digital downloads available after the show beat me to the punch. I love that concept.

Probably still difficult to setup the infrastructure (though ideally once its set up you could use it for every show, just upload the flac's), and it doesn't solve the label issue.

But man, I can think of so many shows where I'd have been ecstatic to purchase a live recording the following day/week.

[J_Beck]

I thought it might be possible to try and get local fans with photography expertise to do the pictures and perhaps have a 50/50 split. But yes, instantaneous photos would require some additional equipment. Now that Beth has explained what the situation is, it seems unlikely that photos would be any more convenient than audio in terms of pre-order. 
Thanks for the insight.

There are mobile photo printers, around $200-300, that don't even need a laptop if you have a compatible camera. Canon, for example

If it's any help I would gladly volunteer my time to help achieve any "instant merch" goals, albeit remotely from the West coast.

If you are charging good money you will want high quality ink at least not pigmented like Epson's ultra chrome.  (Having an image that will fade leaves a bad impression.)

Also if you run tethered to the computer it goes right in, then you can just use a pre-programed set of processing commands to make it go from something that looks like a snap shot to more of a studio one.

[J_Beck]

Oh and no worries about bringing cameras especially to Amanda's gigs, there are tons around so you wont be alone and people are usually very respective towards you.  As for damage I never felt that there was a chance at her shows mine that would be.  Even at Metal shows people around the mosh pit would notice you and keep it away.

I was worried about not getting in with the SLR Camera but that doesn’t seem to stop others and might not be much of an issue anymore. I think I would be ok with the Camera in the venues but the journeys leave me worried. Ha! Heading back from the union chapel gig, I got my bag lodged in the tube-train door.   

I thought it might be possible to try and get local fans with photography expertise to do the pictures and perhaps have a 50/50 split. But yes, instantaneous photos would require some additional equipment. Now that Beth has explained what the situation is, it seems unlikely that photos would be any more convenient than audio in terms of pre-order. 

Thanks for the insight.

No problem, as for Amanda/Doll's shows they usually make sure the venues know that cameras and recording equipment are allowed.  There have been issues I have heard about but they are exceptions not the norm.

With getting photographers to do it, the person doing the photos doesn't need much training just it needs set up right.  You get it on the tripod, and use a remote shutter.  Take a test shot, save the actions you use for processing, and crop for say 8x10 prints.  Then the person operating the camera presses a button for the shot, and clicks the action in the photo editor, and then presses print.  That's it.

[J_Beck]

Whoever mentioned digital downloads available after the show beat me to the punch. I love that concept.

Probably still difficult to setup the infrastructure (though ideally once its set up you could use it for every show, just upload the flac's), and it doesn't solve the label issue.

But man, I can think of so many shows where I'd have been ecstatic to purchase a live recording the following day/week.

I haven't been following the board that closely the last year or 2 but do people still post lots of recordings?

(Triple post FTW, it is annoying copying and pasting all of them using Dragon)

[Kovacs]

Oops. I shouldve been more specific. I'd be stoked to pay for a recording directly from the sound board. Bootlegs have never appealed to me.

I have a CD copy of a [unamed band, unrelated to any artists here though] show that's straight from the board (obtained legally). I adore it, the sound is incredible, plus all the banter is there to trigger memories.

(I'm not sure if folks still post bootlegs here)

[J_Beck]

Oops. I shouldve been more specific. I'd be stoked to pay for a recording directly from the sound board. Bootlegs have never appealed to me.

I have a CD copy of a [unamed band, unrelated to any artists here though] show that's straight from the board (obtained legally). I adore it, the sound is incredible, plus all the banter is there to trigger memories.

(I'm not sure if folks still post bootlegs here)

The reason I am bringing it up is well back then there were tons of very high quality recordings floating around, maybe not to the level of straight from the board but the microphone set ups people brought in were pretty crazy.   If that is still going on the board recordings might not be that huge of a jump.

[Kovacs]

Random money maker: http://www.youtube.com/user/pomplamoosemusic?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/6/sfE2E-8Azyc

Basically they released their CD on custom thumb drives, meaning you automatically got a functional item along with the music. Plus it meant they could easily throw on their videos, pictures, etc.


I have no clue how/if they made this cost-effective. But I want one. 

[J_Beck]

Random money maker: http://www.youtube.com/user/pomplamoosemusic?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/6/sfE2E-8Azyc

Basically they released their CD on custom thumb drives, meaning you automatically got a functional item along with the music. Plus it meant they could easily throw on their videos, pictures, etc.


I have no clue how/if they made this cost-effective. But I want one. 

For the data size needed to buy them in large quantities it would be under a dollar, the only issue is if they are "on the shelf" for a long time they can lose the data.

[bjacques]

Einstürzende Neubauten burned their show onto two CDs. They came in a plain cardboard folding sleeve and you had to look up the set list later I think, but the sound quality was very good, direct from the board I assume.

Before the show or during the intermission (I forget which) they took orders at the merch table and (I think) gave a receipt. Then at the end of the show you went back to the merch table to collect your CDs. AFP can print up a number of CD live show sleeves in advance and refresh the supply during the tour. Alternatively, the show could be dumped as one or more FLAC files onto a USB thumb drive.

Either way, the transaction is done by the end of the show.

[insignifikunt]

Beth already said live recordings is a no go;

We considered doing live recordings at shows but 1) label issues and 2) the equipment to burn and package CDs on the spot is expensive, plus you need to have someone running the equipment (adding another crew member, expensive) AND there's too much chance for something to go wrong.  We're a small operation and it's important to keep it simple.

As for the order-now-get-later thing--- I would rather never run another preorder.  At the merch table, it makes me much, much happier to be able to take someone's money and hand them their merch and have the transaction be OVER so we can all go on with our lives

I understand the label issues kind of... well no I don't, I can understand it from a publishers point of view so unless Amanda is also contracted to road runner for her publishing then they have no stake in live recordings do they? I am asking because I am not sure... Record labels only own the recordings they pay for, Amanda retains ownership of the music and lyrics does she not, or her publisher owns the rights to them?

I wouldn't think there is an issue with "having someone running the equipment". My brother is in a band and he records his live shows straight to an mp3 player directly from the sound board and they always sound great. If the mix is done well enough and I would hope the dude/dudette doing sound for someone like AFP would be skilled enough to do so. So you don't need anyone extra, just get whoever is mixing sound that night to record it.

True the equip to burn/package CDs on the spot is expensive so offer it digital only instead if you don't want to go physical, or dont do it on the spot, offer the option to order and have them pressed later. I know you say you wouldn't want another pre-order, and I can understand that after what happened before, but if it makes AFP money (and as a result you Beth), then isn't it worth a try?

I saw someone else mention that USB thing. There's a few bands who have been using that technology for a while... I don't know if this would be possible to do, but could it be organised for a live recording of the gig to be uploaded to a computer (or two) in the venue and then people bring USBs and pay to have the recording dumped on the USB if the idea of emailing everyone the link or file was too much. Although I would still think the email option would be better because it means you may get more emails from fans that you don't already have...

You could even do this without a pre order. Record it and have it mastered if it required and then put it up for sale for purchase. That way if anything did fuck up in the recording process, there was no exchange of money so no refunds need to be made. You could still collect email addresses by asking people to sign up to receive notification about when the recording would be available to purchase. If people wanted physical then, you could burn on demand if that were possible... Although it is cheaper to get larger volumes pressed if it were done professionally...

[beth of all trades]

There are about a million responses I have to this, but there is only so much of our business that I can put out on the internet.  The one thing that I absolutely, 100% have to address, though, is this:

True the equip to burn/package CDs on the spot is expensive so offer it digital only instead if you don't want to go physical, or dont do it on the spot, offer the option to order and have them pressed later. I know you say you wouldn't want another pre-order, and I can understand that after what happened before, but if it makes AFP money (and as a result you Beth), then isn't it worth a try?

No, and I'll tell you precisely why:

The WKAP preorder got fucked up beyond imagining, but there are other projects we've done this year that have gotten fucked up in more minor ways.  The LOFNOTC shirts were delayed more than a month because someone's spam settings on their email were screwed up.  Half of the DVDs we sold during the webcast are still making their way around the world, a month later.  The Virginia Companion was put together with the wrong glue and fell apart in people's hands.  Hell, I launched the BPAL scents on PWT last month and discovered that our automated system was charging tax that was hugely wrong and now we're going through and refunding every order we ever filled--- and people were PISSED.

Every time something gets screwed up, no matter whose fault it is, and no matter if it's horribly screwed up or minorly, we lose people.  You know what I keep hearing over and over again?  "I'm not buying XYZ product, I don't trust them after what happened."  "I heard how badly their preorder went and it makes me really reluctant to order anything." 

Making a few grand selling live recordings on the road--- no matter how desperate we are for money to keep this ship afloat--- is not worth losing fans who, over the course of A's career, will collectively spend many times that.  This isn't even my bleeding heart talking.  That's a fact. 

You also have to consider manpower.  Every project that gets fucked up takes more of my time, more of Sean's time.  I spent more time trying to fix the preorder issues than I spent DESIGNING THE BOOK.  For every person who is content to sit back and be patient while we fix things, there is another who is going to email, sometimes multiple times in a week, sometimes cursing and full of bile.  The amount of energy these things suck out leaves me (I won't speak for Sean here, but I suspect he'd agree with me) looking at my actual work through exhausted eyes.  I haven't done anything creative for A in months... I am spending more of my time at this point doing customer service rather than helping move us forward to new projects, and the thing I'm GOOD at is moving forward, not looking back.

We wanted to do live recordings last fall.  We got  far into the process of figuring out how to do it when we hit a number of different walls (and I have no idea how the label figured in, but they definitely did--- I suspect you can't just monetize recordings without their sign-off) and realized that when AFP has a full crew, cash to spend on the necessary equipment, and we all have TIME to plan how to do it right, we'd revisit. 

The worst thing we could do at this point is to just try anything because it will make a few bucks.   That is how things get fucked up and that is how you lose people and if you do that too many times, you also burn out your staff and they start wondering if Tegan & Sara need a multitalented personal assistant.  Wait, did I say that out loud? 

The irony here, as we put up donation jars and hold webcasts and put out new merch, is that Amanda's art as-is generates plenty of income--- for the record label. 

[Morpheus Laughing]

If the label didn’t have a say in live recordings, the artiste would be able to use it as a loophole to escape the contracted record deal. Now that Beth has mentioned it, it seems obvious that the label would control this aspect too.

I can almost imagine an artiste inviting fans to a “live show” held in a studio (or maybe just a room/venue with great acoustic properties).  After a few of these “shows,” it would be possible to get things sounding great and the best versions could be compiled. The live definition would break down.

[Hayley Fiasco!]

If the label didn’t have a say in live recordings, the artiste would be able to use it as a loophole to escape the contracted record deal. Now that Beth has mentioned it, it seems obvious that the label would control this aspect too.

Yes, and not to mention numerous contractual obligations and royalty/money distribution that's part of the original record contract. It's much more complicated then "let's record this show and sell it."

My personal view about live recordings: I think fans should continue to be encouraged to record and tape concerts freely. As long as people are not selling bootlegs and making a profit, it should be an open taping policy. Live DVDs and other live recordings of professional quality should be created but if you make them to sell for EVERY show say, throughout an entire 20 date tour, sure that can generate some profit but I think in the long run it may be putting too much product out there. Ultimately I think this sort of thing leaves a bad taste in the mouths of a lot of fans... especially if you are known for previously having an open taping/trading recording policy, it's like taking something away.


I've refrained from posting in this thread but I've been following along. Sometimes I'll read something people write here and it makes a lot of sense to me (even if I personally disagree). Other times I'll see replies that frustrate the shit out of me. The part that frustrates me the most is when I see people speak on behalf of other people, especially without knowing the larger picture. It's ignorance - not that anyone intends to be misconstrued, but some people are speaking matter-of-factly about things they really don't know much about.

Like a few pages ago there was a lot of speculation about Sean and Beth's monetary interests. Yes that type of discussion is relevant to the topic at hand (though a bit of stretch) but those comments are mostly based on assumptions people are making - assumptions about: how things work, about Amanda's financial situation, Amanda's contract with her record label and about the terms of Sean and Beth's employment.

The way I see it - Amanda has only told us limited information about her finances and her debt, and until she explains the situation more (which I believe she plans to do in the part 2 blog that she's writing) - it's all a guessing game and assumptions.

See, you can know that Amanda is in debt  - because she has repeatedly mentioned that she is. But what you don't know is who she is in debt to and why. Does it matter? Do we really need to know? My personal opinion is no - it doesn't matter and we don't really need to know, but it can't hurt for Amanda to EXPLAIN the basics of how things work and why things are the way they are. I think once she does that, a bunch of you will better understand the situation with the record label and with self-financing a CD and just get a better understanding of how-things-work.

I think it's a lot more complicated than it seems. I have trust though that at the end of the day the decisions that are being made by Amanda and her crew are all made with the purest of intentions. There's a lot of ideas following and a lot of art that is being created or that Amanda & co. want to create. To get the music and the art out there to everyone who wants is sometimes harder than you'd think - especially with a middleman like a record company (not to even mention the increased difficulties of having a record company you don't see eye-to-eye with). I think it's important to see what Amanda is doing and see how it's different than any other musician or artist - she is marking new territory and it's hard to tell right now what the effects will be.

Sometimes it's hard to remember that there are fans outside of the core community. It's reasonable to believe that everyone (or mostly everyone) who is posting on the Shadowbox regularly is a loyal and devoted fan of Amanda and/or the Dresden Dolls. But what about the casual fans that aren't following Amanda via twitter, myspace or facebook? The fans that dig her music and maybe will go to a concert, maybe will buy a CD but don't have an interest to consume everything/anything other than the typical things musicians offer? Those fans are harder to keep around than the ones who are fully invested in the art and have a sincere intention to support everything Amanda has to offer. The casual fans are the ones that Amanda doesn't want to scare away - and as Beth mentioned - they are people that are getting upset and don't understand how or why things go wrong. If they don't have or desire to have the patience to wait for things to work out they may easily decide not to continue to support Amanda anymore - those are the fans that decide not to stick around and any/every musician/artist wants to want to avoid that.

I must say though - Amanda & her team do the most I've ever seen any musician/artist do in order to return the support and loyalty that fans give. They go above beyond to show that they do care about the fans. And Amanda trusts that her fans will take care of her if she takes care of them. And I think so far it's proving to be true.

[Morpheus Laughing]

Basically they released their CD on custom thumb drives, meaning you automatically got a functional item along with the music. Plus it meant they could easily throw on their videos, pictures, etc.

I have no clue how/if they made this cost-effective. But I want one. 

Thanks for mentioning that! I know some people who might be interested in this. Found a site that makes them

http://www.usb-extra.co.uk/products-flashdrive-custom.html

The Customisation options are immense.  I had no idea that companies like this were about.
Have no idea about the prices but I’m impressed. 

[Pope Totalfrog]

I must say though - Amanda & her team do the most I've ever seen any musician/artist do in order to return the support and loyalty that fans give. They go above beyond to show that they do care about the fans. And Amanda trusts that her fans will take care of her if she takes care of them. And I think so far it's proving to be true.

Truer words were never spoken.

[bjacques]

@Morpheus Laughing: Great Thomas Ligotti quote!

Yeah, I guess after a moment's thought, it makes sense that the record company would have its fingers in anything remotely related to Amanda's music to date, possibly everything she's writing now (if they can prove it) and maybe even anything she does publicly as herself (but I hope that doesn't extend to the webcast auctions; that would be too depressing to contemplate) until thhe dispute is resolved. If she's still talking to a lawyer (which also costs money), she'll have been advised not to post specifics.

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

The Steve Albini essay about record companies gives an idea of what it's like. The company can simply wait until a recalcitrant performer is desperate. (If the essay is common knowledge, my apologies, but Teh Google says it's known everywhere but here.) I'm frankly amazed Amanda can keep the money from direct sales.

So the problem boils down to how Amanda can dig herself out of her financial hole without waking Roadrunner's legal hounds. Hence the boingboing post about the tip jar. Being a decent person (and not, say, the Gallagher bros.), she has a lot of leeway in this.

If RR don't get a cut of direct sales, then buy buy buy. Buy merch for your friends and relatives (and extras that they can will to their progeny). Buy some to give away as bribes to local politicians, to send to Aung San Suu Kyi, to bury in time capsules for posterity (to confuse paleontologists in the far future) and to launch at the moon.

[Morpheus Laughing]

@Morpheus Laughing: Great Thomas Ligotti quote!

Thankyou… It is from “My Work is Not Yet Done”

The Steve Albini essay about record companies gives an idea of what it's like. The company can simply wait until a recalcitrant performer is desperate. (If the essay is common knowledge, my apologies, but Teh Google says it's known everywhere but here.) I'm frankly amazed Amanda can keep the money from direct sales.

The Albini essay is around somewhere on the forum but it's good to be reminded about it.
 
Amanda can make money because she is effectively making herself into a substitute retailer. Somewhere along the line, her royalties end up with the label. She is just getting the retail profit.

It’s like a really bad version of when you are in a band and the promoters don’t want to pay you. You have to buy all the tickets and stand at the door with a marked up price and hope you get it back. The promoter still rakes it in, but at least you get something.

[Kovacs]

The irony here, as we put up donation jars and hold webcasts and put out new merch, is that Amanda's art as-is generates plenty of income--- for the record label.

Very important point, easily lost. The meta-irony is this is what will cause the death of all the big labels. They're flailing instead of adapting.

That is how things get fucked up and that is how you lose people and if you do that too many times, you also burn out your staff and they start wondering if Tegan & Sara need a multitalented personal assistant.  Wait, did I say that out loud

*high five*

[insignifikunt]

There are about a million responses I have to this, but there is only so much of our business that I can put out on the internet.  The one thing that I absolutely, 100% have to address, though, is this:

True the equip to burn/package CDs on the spot is expensive so offer it digital only instead if you don't want to go physical, or dont do it on the spot, offer the option to order and have them pressed later. I know you say you wouldn't want another pre-order, and I can understand that after what happened before, but if it makes AFP money (and as a result you Beth), then isn't it worth a try?

No, and I'll tell you precisely why:

The WKAP preorder got fucked up beyond imagining, but there are other projects we've done this year that have gotten fucked up in more minor ways.  The LOFNOTC shirts were delayed more than a month because someone's spam settings on their email were screwed up.  Half of the DVDs we sold during the webcast are still making their way around the world, a month later.  The Virginia Companion was put together with the wrong glue and fell apart in people's hands.  Hell, I launched the BPAL scents on PWT last month and discovered that our automated system was charging tax that was hugely wrong and now we're going through and refunding every order we ever filled--- and people were PISSED.

Every time something gets screwed up, no matter whose fault it is, and no matter if it's horribly screwed up or minorly, we lose people.  You know what I keep hearing over and over again?  "I'm not buying XYZ product, I don't trust them after what happened."  "I heard how badly their preorder went and it makes me really reluctant to order anything." 

Making a few grand selling live recordings on the road--- no matter how desperate we are for money to keep this ship afloat--- is not worth losing fans who, over the course of A's career, will collectively spend many times that.  This isn't even my bleeding heart talking.  That's a fact. 

You also have to consider manpower.  Every project that gets fucked up takes more of my time, more of Sean's time.  I spent more time trying to fix the preorder issues than I spent DESIGNING THE BOOK.  For every person who is content to sit back and be patient while we fix things, there is another who is going to email, sometimes multiple times in a week, sometimes cursing and full of bile.  The amount of energy these things suck out leaves me (I won't speak for Sean here, but I suspect he'd agree with me) looking at my actual work through exhausted eyes.  I haven't done anything creative for A in months... I am spending more of my time at this point doing customer service rather than helping move us forward to new projects, and the thing I'm GOOD at is moving forward, not looking back.

We wanted to do live recordings last fall.  We got  far into the process of figuring out how to do it when we hit a number of different walls (and I have no idea how the label figured in, but they definitely did--- I suspect you can't just monetize recordings without their sign-off) and realized that when AFP has a full crew, cash to spend on the necessary equipment, and we all have TIME to plan how to do it right, we'd revisit. 

The worst thing we could do at this point is to just try anything because it will make a few bucks.   That is how things get fucked up and that is how you lose people and if you do that too many times, you also burn out your staff and they start wondering if Tegan & Sara need a multitalented personal assistant.  Wait, did I say that out loud? 

The irony here, as we put up donation jars and hold webcasts and put out new merch, is that Amanda's art as-is generates plenty of income--- for the record label. 

Fair enough to all of that, I only suggested it though because everyone else was coming up with different ways to make more money and this was something that worked for other artists. I just can't relate to anyone who would turn their back on their favourite artist/music because of things fucking up that weren't even in your's/Sean's/Amanda's control. That to me is more fucked up than anything.

 

[insignifikunt]

My personal view about live recordings: I think fans should continue to be encouraged to record and tape concerts freely. As long as people are not selling bootlegs and making a profit, it should be an open taping policy. Live DVDs and other live recordings of professional quality should be created but if you make them to sell for EVERY show say, throughout an entire 20 date tour, sure that can generate some profit but I think in the long run it may be putting too much product out there. Ultimately I think this sort of thing leaves a bad taste in the mouths of a lot of fans... especially if you are known for previously having an open taping/trading recording policy, it's like taking something away.

Firstly I wasn't suggesting she tape EVERY show that would be fucking ridiculous, secondly if this were to happen and Amanda could have done live recordings to sell, is there anyone out there who really would get the shits if Amanda asked them not to tape the occasional show here or there?? ?? I am asking this to anyone who is reading this!!! I'm pretty sure she has asked people not to tape/upload new songs before and I am pretty sure people refrained without holding a grudge. I shouldn't say that though because that would be speculative and ignorant of me wouldn't it.

Like this;

Like a few pages ago there was a lot of speculation about Sean and Beth's monetary interests. Yes that type of discussion is relevant to the topic at hand (though a bit of stretch) but those comments are mostly based on assumptions people are making - assumptions about: how things work, about Amanda's financial situation, Amanda's contract with her record label and about the terms of Sean and Beth's employment.

That was me who wrote that and it was to illustrate a fact that NOT ALL MIDDLE MEN are greedy cunts as many people, including Amanda, have been suggesting. I was saying Beth and Sean are middle men, but they are not greedy cunts so stop fucking stereotyping. There are plently of people in the music industry that make money off other people's creative work and if they do so because they are providing a service, and doing so well, then they do deserve to make some money. Road Runner are not providing that service well so they are greedy cunts, they take without giving. But that doesn't mean people should have that opinion about everyone in the music industry.

I understand that you Hayley, used to have a radio show, perhaps you still do, from what I remember it was a voluntary thing wasn't it??? If you were paid for that position though, you yourself would be considered a middle man and making money from other people's art, do you think you would have been greedy to take money for providing a service for fans and artist? Some how I don't think so.

I actually do know quite a bit about the music industry, I dont know everything about Amanda's situation so maybe it is wrong of me to speculate about this, but I honestly can't believe you are having a bitch about me speculating about this but when people were all speculating about whether or not she'd have an abortion if she got pregnant with Neil's child that was appropriate conversation. What a fucking joke. 

I love Amanda's music and I had incredible respect for her and everyone involved- this I agreed with;

Amanda & her team do the most I've ever seen any musician/artist do in order to return the support and loyalty that fans give. They go above beyond to show that they do care about the fans. And Amanda trusts that her fans will take care of her if she takes care of them. And I think so far it's proving to be true.

I'll still buy her music and go broke after seeing her at numerous shows in Oz if she comes back again (although I am actually broke now so that probably won't happen, I'll still donate when I can and buy merch, but right now I have a "bad taste in my mouth." Don't think I can be fucked with these boards anymore. I know it doesn't make a difference to you, or anyone else and you probably think I'm just over reacting but meh.

[BATTEREDxBRIDExLUVR!]

I honestly can't believe you are having a bitch about me speculating about this but when people were all speculating about whether or not she'd have an abortion if she got pregnant with Neil's child that was appropriate conversation. What a fucking joke. 

Reread that thread and then feel free to edit your post.

[Hayley Fiasco!]

Since when is it a crime to read a 100 thoughts and opinions from many people and form one generalized viewpoint? Isn't that the point of a message forum? Why yes, yes it is.

Taking comments that were not directed towards you as personal and cursing up a storm are all things that if anything, make your discussion less intelligent and harder to take seriously. If you want to continue this discussion and actually have me respond to you directly (or rather, respond to your reply from my post in this thread), ask me questions or even ask me to clarify what I'm referring to in a way that's less confrontational.

Disagreements and confusion are all okay, they promote discourse and this is a very interesting discussion as it is but I refuse to steer this thread away from the direction it was intended to go (as a reply to Amanda's blog and subsequently, as a discussion based on those replies/reactions).

[Andy Pants]

Since when is it a crime to read a 100 thoughts and opinions from many people and form one generalized viewpoint? Isn't that the point of a message forum? Why yes, yes it is.

Taking comments that were not directed towards you as personal and cursing up a storm are all things that if anything, make your discussion less intelligent and harder to take seriously. If you want to continue this discussion and actually have me respond to you directly (or rather, respond to your reply from my post in this thread), ask me questions or even ask me to clarify what I'm referring to in a way that's less confrontational.

Disagreements and confusion are all okay, they promote discourse and this is a very interesting discussion as it is but I refuse to steer this thread away from the direction it was intended to go (as a reply to Amanda's blog and subsequently, as a discussion based on those replies/reactions).

When did your stars become stripey? Or have they always been like that and I just haven't noticed?

Despite the fact that I haven't contributed much to this thread it is something I have thought about quite a bit. Can anyone explain to me why an artist needs a record label? What can they  do that an artist can't do themselves? The only thing I can come up with is distribution. Why not just start your own distribution company?

[BATTEREDxBRIDExLUVR!]

Since when is it a crime to read a 100 thoughts and opinions from many people and form one generalized viewpoint? Isn't that the point of a message forum? Why yes, yes it is.

Taking comments that were not directed towards you as personal and cursing up a storm are all things that if anything, make your discussion less intelligent and harder to take seriously. If you want to continue this discussion and actually have me respond to you directly (or rather, respond to your reply from my post in this thread), ask me questions or even ask me to clarify what I'm referring to in a way that's less confrontational.

Disagreements and confusion are all okay, they promote discourse and this is a very interesting discussion as it is but I refuse to steer this thread away from the direction it was intended to go (as a reply to Amanda's blog and subsequently, as a discussion based on those replies/reactions).

When did your stars become stripey? Or have they always been like that and I just haven't noticed?

Despite the fact that I haven't contributed much to this thread it is something I have thought about quite a bit. Can anyone explain to me why an artist needs a record label? What can they  do that an artist can't do themselves? The only thing I can come up with is distribution. Why not just start your own distribution company?

I don't have an answer but I know that's something that's going to be in "the blog" whenever Amanda gets around to finishing/posting it.

[insignifikunt]

I honestly can't believe you are having a bitch about me speculating about this but when people were all speculating about whether or not she'd have an abortion if she got pregnant with Neil's child that was appropriate conversation. What a fucking joke. 

Reread that thread and then feel free to edit your post.

More people were saying it was ok to discuss Amanda and abortion than were opposed to it.

[BATTEREDxBRIDExLUVR!]

I honestly can't believe you are having a bitch about me speculating about this but when people were all speculating about whether or not she'd have an abortion if she got pregnant with Neil's child that was appropriate conversation. What a fucking joke. 

Reread that thread and then feel free to edit your post.

More people were saying it was ok to discuss Amanda and abortion than were opposed to it.

if that's what you're saying then why are you so upset about ONE PERSON disagreeing with you?

[insignifikunt]

Since when is it a crime to read a 100 thoughts and opinions from many people and form one generalized viewpoint? Isn't that the point of a message forum? Why yes, yes it is.

Taking comments that were not directed towards you as personal and cursing up a storm are all things that if anything, make your discussion less intelligent and harder to take seriously. If you want to continue this discussion and actually have me respond to you directly (or rather, respond to your reply from my post in this thread), ask me questions or even ask me to clarify what I'm referring to in a way that's less confrontational.

Disagreements and confusion are all okay, they promote discourse and this is a very interesting discussion as it is but I refuse to steer this thread away from the direction it was intended to go (as a reply to Amanda's blog and subsequently, as a discussion based on those replies/reactions).

So it's ok for you to suggest I am ignorant for speculating about something but it's not ok for me to get annoyed about that? You are saying that wasn't directed at me, and I am taking it personally but I was the one who talked about Beth and Sean in a post so who else would you have been talking about? Oh and please explain how adding the word fuck or cunt makes any discussion less intelligent? Amanda swore many times in that blog alone and I'm sure you didn't think that made her point of view less intelligent. But she's a rock star so that's ok?

In regards to you suggesting it's not a crime to take consider 100 posts and develop a generalised view point and that is in fact the point of a message board... Well it's alright for me to disagree with that viewpoint isn't it? That's exactly what I was doing, disagreeing and uou didn't even respond to why I disagree with it, instead you moan about my swearing and confrontational post. What I wrote was in reference to the blog and why I don't agree with Amanda and everyone claiming all middle men are greedy, so if anything you are the one steering the thread away from it's intended direction.

[insignifikunt]

I honestly can't believe you are having a bitch about me speculating about this but when people were all speculating about whether or not she'd have an abortion if she got pregnant with Neil's child that was appropriate conversation. What a fucking joke. 

Reread that thread and then feel free to edit your post.

More people were saying it was ok to discuss Amanda and abortion than were opposed to it.

if that's what you're saying then why are you so upset about ONE PERSON disagreeing with you?

I'm not upset that one person disagrees with me (although it's everyone that does), I'm pissed off that I am referred to as ignorant for speculating about something which is what EVERYONE is doing really, because although Amanda is vocal about her financial situation, no one knows the full story, so every post here, other than Beth's, is speculation. But because I don't agree with Amanda on something I am ignorant for making assumptions which I still don't think are assumptions.

I still don't even get why what I wrote was so frustrating for Hayley, and why I should be called ignorant for it, I agree with pretty much everything else Amanda wrote in that blog, I just disagree with the fact she has labelled all middle men as greedy evil people because it's just not true. Yes Road Runner are fucked I agree with that I just thought she should be a little clearer about what she means when she writes that. That is ALL. I don't think I should be made to feel guilty for working in the music industry just because it's not in a creative way in the sense that I'm creating art (a lot of the things I do are creative but not so much "artistic"). Yes I'd be making money from others people's art but only because I'd be providing that artist with a service they can't carry out themselves. At the moment I'm not even making money from helping artists! I am voluntarily doing it but I can't do that forever as I currently only have $10 in my bank account!

[Hayley Fiasco!]

When did your stars become stripey? Or have they always been like that and I just haven't noticed?

Literal answer? Since I was made a mod/admin.

Real answer, a few days ago.


It's much more complicated than I can explain - the purpose behind record labels. But the simplified answer is that record companies have connections that start-up bands need/want and don't have. They also have money - which means they can give bands advances - money to make their albums and to buy instruments, support a tour, hire a promotion company to do radio promo, advertise etc. Sure an artist can do this on their own but it's really hard if you don't happen to have oh I don't know, several hundred thousand dollars to start with.

[The Angel Raliel]

When did your stars become stripey? Or have they always been like that and I just haven't noticed?

Literal answer? Since I was made a mod/admin.

Real answer, a few days ago.


It's much more complicated than I can explain - the purpose behind record labels. But the simplified answer is that record companies have connections that start-up bands need/want and don't have. They also have money - which means they can give bands advances - money to make their albums and to buy instruments, support a tour, hire a promotion company to do radio promo, advertise etc. Sure an artist can do this on their own but it's really hard if you don't happen to have oh I don't know, several hundred thousand dollars to start with.

indeed and it is a relationship that can work extremely well for artist and label when the label is willing to keep their side of the relationship.....the problem that amanda has experienced is unfortunately not unique.... and has a lot to do with the record label seeing only how they can profit....

[CeeGBee]

When did your stars become stripey? Or have they always been like that and I just haven't noticed?

Literal answer? Since I was made a mod/admin.

Real answer, a few days ago.


It's much more complicated than I can explain - the purpose behind record labels. But the simplified answer is that record companies have connections that start-up bands need/want and don't have. They also have money - which means they can give bands advances - money to make their albums and to buy instruments, support a tour, hire a promotion company to do radio promo, advertise etc. Sure an artist can do this on their own but it's really hard if you don't happen to have oh I don't know, several hundred thousand dollars to start with.

indeed and it is a relationship that can work extremely well for artist and label when the label is willing to keep their side of the relationship.....the problem that amanda has experienced is unfortunately not unique.... and has a lot to do with the record label seeing only how they can profit....

Give a man a fish; feed him for a day. 

Teach a man to fish; feed him for a lifetime 
he doesn't need you any more.

[The Angel Raliel]

give a juggler 3 fish and you have a profitable act!

[CeeGBee]

give a juggler 3 fish and you have a profitable act!

Real fish? 

Wow, I would like to see that!   Where is this spectacle you speak of, sir?

[Rob]

give a juggler 3 fish and you have a profitable act!

Go to a Phish concert and spend the rest of your life trying to wash the smell of Patchuli and B.O out of your clothes.

[Musings]

I leave this thread for a few days and no longer have any idea what is going on.

Although, I will say this: I never disagree with Amanda, and that's how I have thus far stayed alive.  Just a warning to the rest of y'all.

[Morpheus Laughing]

Whatever differences there are, it’s clear that this is a good intentioned discussion. Everyone wants the best for AFP. It’s unfortunate that differences get exaggerated.

[Kenny Wisdom]

give a juggler 3 fish and you have a profitable act!

Don't tip the fish juggling brigader at an AFP gig, then you're a shellfish bastard!

[The Angel Raliel]

oh that was cod awful!

[Andy Pants]

give a juggler 3 fish and you have a profitable act!

Don't tip the fish juggling brigader at an AFP gig, then you're a shellfish bastard!

Did someone mention shellfish? Because I have a giant crab on my head.

[Rob]

I thought the whole point was to not be shelfish...

With friends like that, who needs anemones?

[The Angel Raliel]

as long as Amanda does not go from art to simple prawnography

[Rob]

Sometimes the two can octopi the same space.

[The Angel Raliel]

well I will keep giving her my hard earned squids.....

[My Two Innings]

That's easy to say from your perch...

[The Angel Raliel]

don't carp on about it

[Rob]

Is this thread going to move along or just keep floundering?

[Kenny Wisdom]

While we wait for the answer to that Rob, I'm going off to listen to Mary's Sturgeon on my icod.

[Wednesday Friday]

at least everyone's stopped snapper-ing at each other...

[Julie Fern]

My guitar teacher was just talking about this blog post he'd seen.

"Quite right" he said