Print

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

[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.