Print

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

[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