Amanda Palmer Talks About Record Labels, Art, Commerce & Retiring To Open A Juice Bar
from the free-to-be dept
We've discussed in the past some of Amanda Palmer's business model experiments, and she's guest posted on this site herself about connecting with her fans. Last month she finally was "freed" from her major record label deal and celebrated that fact. Anyway, she's in the San Francisco Bay Area this weekend performing both Saturday and Sunday... and then on Monday, she'll be teaming up with Ok Go, the band that similarly just celebrated being "dropped" from their label, to do a combination webcast/art contest. As she prepares for all that (and is in the middle of a tour) she took some time to answer a few quick questions about the whole process of freeing oneself from a major record label deal...You've been fighting your (old) label, Roadrunner for a while now, in response to your feeling that it didn't do much (if anything) to support your last album. As of a few weeks ago, you're now officially free from that label. What can you tell us about how those discussions went?
Well, I made it clear to the label a good year and a half ago that i wanted out of the relationship - it was clear to me that things had fallen apart as soon as I went on tour with Who Killed Amanda Palmer, my solo record, and there wasn't any promotion. They're a hard bunch of people to figure out. I think the thing that bothers me most about their system was the difficulty of finding out the Real Truth about things. I'm a generally straight shooter, often to my own demise, and I find it incomprehensible when people play giant games and tell giant stories that are misleading just as a matter of day-to-day business. I just can't function that way.
Of course decisions get made, things change in a moving marketplace - but the label would just keep me totally in the dark about decisions. It became intolerable to feel like there wasn't even an inkling of a partnership. I'd finally been in the business long enough to realize that the people you work with are your Life. And life's too short to not work with people you love. I don't care if I never see a cent they owe me, it's worth it to be free. Everything ahead of me will be so much more joyful, and every penny I earn will feel more joyful.
With both you and Ok Go recently celebrating getting out from under a major label contract, is this a beginning of a shift in how bands view label relationships? For years, the goal was always to get a major label contract and musicians would celebrate getting that deal. Now musicians are celebrating being "dropped" from major labels. Is this a turning point in how musicians interact with labels? Do you see yourself working with a label in the future? If so, how would you structure the relationship?
I have nothing against Labels at all. Labels are groups of people, trying to work. I like people, and I like work. But I think that the collapsed system has made it so hard for them to work well.
If I signed with another label, it would have to be a very personal partnership between me and a group of people that I really trusted to understand my bigger picture.
I would sit down with folks and seriously drill them on what they believed. I've made enough mistakes at this point, I'd proceed with extreme caution and not lock myself into a long-term deal.
Labels are REALLY useful. Any touring band who's successful knows that you can't tour and run an office at the same time. But I think the functionality is going to change...I think labels are going to basically dissolve into promotional companies, now that hard-copy music is going bye-bye.
You've also been pretty active in experimenting with all sorts of creative business models -- and not being ashamed to ask for money. Is there anything in your experiences that you think are applicable to others, or are they more specific to your circumstances? Also, what did you do that didn't work?
I think asking for money is generally considered shameful in the art and music world; it has been for ages. Art has this untouchable romanticism constructed around it; this cultural ideal about artists and how they shouldn't touch money because it strips away the integrity of their art. But that's obviously bullshit, especially if you look throughout history and see that artists have ALWAYS needed to fund themselves and their work creatively, sneakily, with gusto and with shamelessness. The only mistake I think I've made is not making the connection sooner. I think I was still living in the delusion back when we signed. Living inside this idea that we, as major-label-artists, would get to live on the Special Cloud of Art without Commerce. If I'd been thinking ahead, I would have been training and educating our audience form the very start to support us directly.
One of the complaints that people have leveled towards a model that involves using social media to talk with fans is that it takes away from their ability to make music. As someone who uses tools like Twitter, blogging and video streaming all the time, what are your thoughts on that?
If people are complaining that social networking is taking away their ability to make music, they're mistaking "ability" with "priority" and they're being pussies.
There's no rule that says that if you join twitter you had to hang your guitar on the wall and let it collect dust - that's just a fucking myth we tell ourselves to excuse ourselves from work when we find networking fancy and shiny and tempting. Networking and twitter and all the things that connect bands to their fans and to their fellow artists can be INSPIRING and DISTRACTING, depending how you use them. It's just a tool, like the telephone. You choose when to pick it up. If you're strong, you know how to prioritize your life. I'm not saying I'm GOOD at it, but I see where the lines are and I know when I'm falling into the over-communication ditch...then I scrape myself off, unplug, let my brain turn back into a creator's brain, and strap myself there until I have something interesting to bring back to the mac.
What's next for Amanda Palmer?
My new huge exciting project is an album of Radiohead ukulele covers (no, really) that I'm releasing on digital and vinyl only this july. It's a really gorgeous record. Right after that comes out I'm starring in the musical "Cabaret" this fall at the American Repertory Theater, directed by my old high school mentor Steven Bogart, who was the same one that co-created the Neutral Milk Hotel-inspired musical I did last year. I miss and love the stage...rock world gets a little old sometimes. After that, I don't know, I'll probably open a juice bar and retire. But I'll tweet about exciting juice combinations every morning.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: amanda palmer
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
hrmmmm
"have nothing against Labels at all. Labels are groups of people, trying to work. "
really this is why they require insane term lengths on copyrights?
ID like you to get back to here and re-ask that HARD question that NONE will TRUTHFULLY answer.
Sounds to me like shes trying to play nice on the way off a label
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hrmmmm
Most people involved in record labels do not approve of this. They are people who love music, and want to see music exposed to the world at large.
Unfortunately, those people aren't the ones in charge. They have no say in any decision about copyrights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hrmmmm
Think of all the people that worked on The Hurt Locker. Not the producers, but the cameramen, the director, the actors, etc. These are the people that worked hard with one purpose: to make a good movie.
How many of those people believe that suing ten thousand fans is a good idea? Not many of them, possibly not even a single one of them. But they do not have any say in the matter.
Does all of this mean that being a movie actor is wrong? You're entitled to your opinion, but I vote no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: hrmmmm
A number of high profile directors and actors have already spoken out against piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: hrmmmm
Also, it's good to keep in mind that many people in the creative industries cannot speak their mind (unless it's of the same mind as the heads of those industries), for fear of losing their jobs. Your rebuttal is like saying "all of our employees at Coca-Cola believe Pepsi tastes awful."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: hrmmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...and Radiohead played with ukulele sounds awesome!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One has to wonder if this belief of yours only applies to music companies...has Google been allowed to get "too large"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ukulele
Amanda ,, you are cool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ukulele
My parody of "honky tonk women" is there on uke.
and you ,,Amanda , can read my blog there for my uke history.
Would like to hear from you, and hear your uke album when it is done !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@2 better reread #1
rolling stones doesn't have a label looking after tours and neither did roy orbison OR johnny cash.
ALL three made millions and millions off tours and or writing and doing stuff for others.
labels add bureaucracy= more cash to a problem doesn't always fix it.
as i said it sounds like a vain attmpt at not burning a bridge when your effectively saying FUCK OFF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @2 better reread #1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Y'know...
When really, they're about the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Y'know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Y'know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Y'know...
Great contribution to the discussion!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Also, the post shows that you DON'T need the labels. Learn to RTFA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can't have it both ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mike, you REALLY need to implement a voting feature on the comments, like on YouTube! If a comment gathers enough negative votes, it gets hidden -- that way we can ignore the trolls without having to respond to them (and feed them).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And I'd downvote your comment because you are a prick, TAM. Facepalm? Seriously? *facepalm*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Weird. Every one of the points you've made here were proven wrong to you in the post where you made those false accusations. And yet you repeat them anyway. Time to get new material.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
you know the truth, it has long since been discussed. this has nothing to do with other videos at other places and other times (where someone else, not me, quoted incorrect dates). thanks for trying, but you know the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, we don't have to. You're the one who insists on lying, so if we must make a fool of you yet again, you asked for it.
there was plenty of evidence at the time of people being contacted ahead and being instructed what to wear.
None of that was ever in question. Only you made up the strawman fact that this was organized that day. Even in the post discussing it we pointed out that the gig was announced with two days' notice. And, it's a *standard thing* for her "ninja gigs" for her to make suggestions for her fans to show up doing something wacky or wearing certain types of clothing. So, you have made up a myth to debunk it, when the story was exactly as everyone said in the first place.
this isn't about the music getting used elsewhere, just that people were "pre-prepped" for what supposedly a spontaneous video of a never before played song.
I have no idea what this sentence even means. But, no, despite your continued insistence, the video was not pre-planned.
why did everyone show up in costumes, just near sunset, just at the right place and there just happened to be multiple high quality cameras that to just happen to record this wildly spontaneous event?
Because it was one of the many "ninja gigs" that she does (i.e, not official gigs), often announced with a few days advance notice, and often with fun instructions for the fans. This was all pointed out to you in the last thread.
What was different about this one was that a filmmaker was among those who showed up and they decided on the spot to make the video. And, these days, it's not so surprising to have an HD camera. I have two of them lying around and both were less than $200. And, the video is a single shot. Meaning there was just one camera.
you know the truth, it has long since been discussed.
Yes, I do know the truth, and it's that you made up a lie.
this has nothing to do with other videos at other places and other times (where someone else, not me, quoted incorrect dates).
Someone who just happened to have the same IP address as you. Coincidence, I'm sure.
thanks for trying, but you know the truth.
And it's that you're wrong, as usual. But will you admit it? Of course not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.polyvore.com/amanda_palmer_ninja_beach_party/set?id=10413886
the invitations were sent out for people to wear specific types of clothing. the layout of the video may have been "impromptu" but the planning was there ahead of time. it wasnt any more spontaneous than a us military operation.
also in this thread:
notice that the discussion of the other videos was started by a posted called debunked.
so the videos was not spontaneous, only not specifically scripted. the location was scouted, the extras solicited, the gear specifically made present. nothing spontaneous there.
facepalm then went on to use the same song in other videos, potentially trying to pass each of those off as spontaneous as well, which they were not. they were all part of a planned series of events that, in the end, didnt get the type of buzz she had hoped for.
so please mike, explain to us all while i am wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fact remains that you are an annoying prick, and I'd be very happy if there was a way for me not to have to read your comments every day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, you keep making this up as if it's news. It wasn't. It's in the video itself and in my post. The VIDEO says that it was announced two days before -- so it remains silly that you keep claiming that's some sorta "gotcha" that proves something. No one hid the timing of the announced gig. You keep making it up as if someone said it was announced that day. But it's THE GIG that was announced two days before. The video was still impromptu.
so the videos was not spontaneous,
You keep claiming this, and you have no proof of it. You think that because the GIG was announced two days earlier -- just like tons of Amanda Palmer ninja gigs, that the video was planned then too, but you offer no proof whatsoever.
the location was scouted
Yes, for the gig. How else do you think she does these ninja gigs. When I met up with her earlier this year, we did the same thing, looking for a place to schedule a ninja gig.
the extras solicited,
If by "extras" you mean her "fans" who she invites to all her ninja gigs, in public, on twitter... then, um, yes. But that doesn't change anything. Again, all of that is known.
the gear specifically made present. nothing spontaneous there.
Again, as often happens with these gigs, she asked people to wear something specific. Again, that's not out of the ordinary and no one claimed otherwise (other than you).
facepalm then went on to use the same song in other videos,
Yes, of course. Once she learned it, and it got a great reaction, why not?
potentially trying to pass each of those off as spontaneous as well, which they were not.
She did no such thing, but nice lie.
they were all part of a planned series of events that, in the end, didnt get the type of buzz she had hoped for.
Yes, she "plans" to have lots of ninja gigs, and they tend to bring out a ton of fans, despite your false accusation.
so please mike, explain to us all while i am wrong.
I have done so in detail, as others did in the original thread.
Why you continue to lie, I cannot fathom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
i think she still has the wool pulled over your eyes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Heh. So after I proved every one of your claims wrong, you're still going to stick to the strawman claim no one made, as if someone had made it?
You can admit you were wrong, you know.
by calling the videos spontaneous, and saying it happened in 10 minutes because someone has just happened to bring a video camera is a massive lie.
And yet, you still haven't proven any of that. You keep harping on a claim that only you are making (that the whole event was planned that day) when the video itself says the the event was planned a few days prior. You still have presented no evidence that the video was not spontaneous, and yet you claim it's all a massive lie?
As some point, you know, it's okay to admit you were wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
take your own advice mike. seriously. the video was planned. the camera booked, the location scouted, the extras instructed what to wear, where to be, and at what time. there isnt anything spontaneous in the concept. the actual content of the video may be somewhat unscripted because they didnt know exactly who would be on hand wearing what, but they showed up that day with the intention of filming a video. that isnt spontaneous. you know it, you understand it, yet you are unable to admit it.
so yes, you can admit you are wrong. go on, be the better man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Every is free to read the details and decide who is being accurate and who is being misleading.
What amazes me, though, is that you still seem unable to even admit that there is a difference between the gig and the video. It is your inability to recognize this simple difference that has you continuing to pretend that people said stuff that simply was not said. That you continue to insist that facts that are IN THE VIDEO were "hidden" in an attempt to mislead people is really quite incredible. Your pathological need to disagree with me is impressive in its persistence, and amazing in the face of overwhelming evidence that you are wrong. Others are free to decide based on the evidence presented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
the problem here is simple: you are buying what they are telling you, even as the evidence points in a different direction. like any good marketer, facepalm knows how to stretch the truth to make a better story. i would think you of all people would be brilliant enough to separate out the truth from the marketing.
there is no overwhleming evidence i am wrong, only their statements (which would go against interest to be any other way). what other proof is there?
see the next post for more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
yet, amandas own site says different:
"LOS ANGELES MADDDDNESSSSS: ninja beach party today in LA!!!!!
4 pm, hermosa beach in LA, end of 16th street. we’ll probably go til about 7 pm.
bring ukuleles, snacks, love and whatever else strikes your fancy…..and be ready to do a huge impromptu photo shoot with lindsey byrnes.and she requested that everybody dress like ninjas and bring flowers. she’s got a PLAN. will post pix as soon as possible.
she’s the one who took THIS beauty (below) at coachella, she’s coming to photo us all…."
so the photography was already planned.
spontaneous indeed. what i find most remarkable is that much the press surrounding facepalm comes from you, your quotes, requotes of your blog, etc. how odd.
Hmmm. less and less looks like what you are putting out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you intentionally trying to be an idiot, or does it come naturally to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Photography and video are two different things. Yes, the photographer was planned. No one said otherwise. Just like no one said otherwise concerning the gig itself being planned with two days notice. And no one said otherwise about the suggestion to bring costumes.
The only thing that was on the spur of the moment was that the video was made. And you still haven't proven that wrong. Instead, you keep claiming that stuff that was already known, already in the open, was somehow kept secret in an attempt to trick people.
But there was no trickery. All of that is known. Stop building a conspiracy where there is none.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My goodness you reach a lot. No one said they didn't know each other at all. We said -- quite clearly in the text YOU QUOTED -- "hardly knew" meaning they did know each other a little bit. That's probably WHY she came to the beach gig, because she was a fan of Amanda's.
Give it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
sigh.
sorry mike, but i am shocked you cant admit after all this time that you got it wrong, that you got taken advantage of. its okay, its our secret.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm sure we can agree that as far as the fans were concerned, the staging of the video WAS spontaneous, and THAT is what matters.
If not to make the fans who attended FEEL this was spontaneous, so the artist can connect with those fans, what's the point of it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What are they receiving royalties on if they never contributed anything? Perhaps you're just an idiot?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
His comments might be stupid, but he is still entitled to his opinion and to share it with the world (however pointless that may be). Freedom of speech must work in all directions even if we do not agree with the contents of the message. Trying to silence him would trump everything this blog has been preaching.
And besides, everyone ignores NAMELESS.ONE, he hasn't been a problem (and he only talks gibberish). It's not like they do any harm here. The signal-to-noise ratio is still good and the majority of the people are sane and give some nice insight (even if I do not agree with all of them).
But I agree on the first point: Trolls should definetly STFU.
PS: note that the system could be abused by trolls to hide "good" comments. It's a double edged sword you've got there that could easily swing both ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, and he's not TAM, of course!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
She is still very happy that she is not on a label. Saying "labels can be good" is not an admission of failure, it's Amanda being gracious. That is something you might like to try sometime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
you miss the point karl. she is one of mikes poster children for why record labels are bad and should go away, you know dinosaurs, middlemen, leeches...
Except, uh, I've never made any such claim. In fact, I've said exactly the opposite. There's still a huge role for a record label:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080318/173833576.shtml
and I've repeatedly pointed to record labels doing good jobs.
there are plenty of terms used for it. when it was argued that an artist cannot be both an artist and a business person, the concept was shot down as stupidity. opportunity cost be damned, they can do it all.
Except, again, I said exactly the opposite. We said that if the artist's don't want to handle that part, then they should work with someone who can do that aspect, and that could very well be a label:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091208/1116027253.shtml
now here is the poster child herself saying not only that labels are good, but that she cannot be an artist and a business person at the same time.
Again, that's the same point we have made. For those who can't do both, work with someone who can. Why do you compulsively lie?
. essentially, she has kicked the legs out from under mikes entire concept.
Except she's agreeing with the whole point that we've made. She's only kicking the legs out from under the totally false strawman that you made up from scratch about what you think I said. It's really weird that you seem to have such a tenuous connection to reality.
she isnt being gracious, as much as regretful. i think she understands now the potential that was lost.
I can assure you, 100%, that this is untrue. She does not believe that any potential was lost. She spent the last year and a half doing everything she could to get out of this bad setup with her label.
I really don't understand why you feel such a bizarre compulsion to blatantly lie about me when it's so easy to prove you wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
i am sorry, you are so right, you are one of the biggest supporters of the record labels.
riiiight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Personally, I would hire a vet. But to Morris, even that wasn't an option. "We didn't know who to hire," he says, becoming more agitated. "I wouldn't be able to recognize a good technology person — anyone with a good bullshit story would have gotten past me." Morris' almost willful cluelessness is telling. "He wasn't prepared for a business that was going to be so totally disrupted by technology," says a longtime industry insider who has worked with Morris. "He just doesn't have that kind of mind."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100518/1031049467.shtml
from the who-needs-you? dept
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100108/0052267665.shtml
"While I don't fully agree with the band's claim that record labels will disappear in 12 years (perhaps a more accurate version is that record labels as we know them will disappear in that time)"
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090806/1726455790.shtml
or
http://www.techdirt.com/ articles/20100128/2014177968.shtml
"the band did, in fact sign with a major record label. This isn't surprising, given what Mazzaferri was saying in the interview, since he seemed to conclude he needed to do that, despite the evidence to the contrary."
So, who needs you, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your reading comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired.
We have pointed out that there is a large problem with the way the major labels do business today. We have never said that no one needs labels. In fact, we have said the opposite, despite your confusion and inability to understand basic nuance.
from the who-needs-you? dept
About the major labels and the way they do business today. Clear to anyone who actually read it in context.
"While I don't fully agree with the band's claim that record labels will disappear in 12 years (perhaps a more accurate version is that record labels as we know them will disappear in that time)"
Again, which sticks by exactly what we've said. That the way the *major labels* act today is problematic, but it doesn't mean that *labels* as an idea are bad.
"the band did, in fact sign with a major record label. This isn't surprising, given what Mazzaferri was saying in the interview, since he seemed to conclude he needed to do that, despite the evidence to the contrary."
Again, same point as earlier.
I don't know what to say to you. We've said, quite clearly, that there is nothing wrong with labels as a concept, and for lots of musicians, they make sense. We do have problems with the way SOME labels act. But not the concept of labels. It's exactly what I said earlier in this thread and have said tons of times before. What I can't figure out is why you continue to pretend people say stuff they didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
you might want to try some vaseline, it makes it easier to slip around and not get stuck.
the artist called signing to a label something they needed to do, and you are saying " despite the evidence to the contrary.". it is clear you think the labels are not needed to advance a career.
sorry, your own words. there isnt much more to say, except that you need to accept your own words even if you cannot except mine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I really can't believe that you have this much trouble understanding simple concepts.
(1) It is correct that I believe labels are *not needed* for any particular artist to be successful.
(2) That *does not mean* that I think there's no place for labels.
The two statements are not mutually exclusive, no matter how hard you try to pretend they are. I believe that *if an artist wants to go it alone* they don't need a label. But, at the same time, for artists who do need the help on the business/promotion/logistics/etc. side, a label can be the right solution.
How you twist that into "Mike says labels are dead" is beyond me. My comment was never that labels have no place. In fact, I said the opposite. My comments have always been that each individual artist doesn't need a label *if they don't want one*, but that if they do, labels can be quite helpful.
sorry, your own words. there isnt much more to say, except that you need to accept your own words even if you cannot except mine.
Yes, my own words, clear as day, no matter how many times you try to misrepresent them.
This is the same thing you did above with the AFP video thing. You take a comment and pretend it said something it did not, and when people call you on it, you just keep repeating that people said stuff they did not, by just slightly twisting their words to pretend they made an extreme statement when it was anything but that. It's as if you have no concept of conditional statements. So odd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
what you get wrong is you miss that your words mean different things than you want them to. in your mind, you might want to say "this", but written down and read by others, it says "that". we cannot see into your mind (thank god, i would lose my lunch), we can only take your words as they are written. "who needs you" is a question that says you dont need them.
perhaps you may want to consider that your readers are not also reading your mind. imprecise ideas and expressions are exactly what you tag others for, and when it is pointed out that you do the same, you waffle and get huffy. your mistake, not mine. if you want to make conditional statements, make them conditional. dont assume others read your stuff and get the conditional that exists only in your mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Heh. I see. So what you blatantly misinterpret my words to mean is what I really meant as opposed to what my words clearly state. Fascinating world you live in.
in your mind, you might want to say "this", but written down and read by others, it says "that".
Only to those with congenital reading comprehension disorder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh my...
That's sure to be a big hit.
(facepalm)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh my...
Will the record suck? Maybe - it doesn't sound like anything I'm interested in, either. But artists can often take ludicrous-sounding ideas and turn them into something good. Amanda is a pretty good artist, so maybe I'll be surprised.
Even if that doesn't happen, I'd never criticize her ability to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Without copyright....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: With copyright....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: With copyright....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@6 LOL your funny
"Most people involved in record labels do not approve of this. They are people who love music, and want to see music exposed to the world at large.
Unfortunately, those people aren't the ones in charge. They have no say in any decision about copyrights."
-so who is in charge of the labels? lol i know its a trollllll
-i see they love music soooo much that instead of just focusing on making it available and using tech to do so cheaply they knee jerked the planet with insane term lengths and then went on a rampage of lawsuits on kids , disabled and poor people with extortion lawsuits.
IF YOU are the label YOUR the one in charge of distribution.
DO NOT LIE TO PEOPLE. YOU whined , oh look over here what these 400 people are doing , showing a million idiots and then you complain you have no money for anything when you still have record profits.....
labels are about control of distribution and plain ol greed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @6 LOL your funny
Most major labels have thousands of people working for them. How many of those people do you think approve of the things you're talking about? Not many. They're not the heads of those labels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@15
that was without a label and its one reason they get the lions share of all the doh if a label is involved now its a very small small slice and thats one reason them lads are seriously fraking rich
DO you think gene simmons needs a label look at the greedy bastard he even has a coffin we can put him in.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@22 HI TAM
fact is she even states she let the label know shes done with them, then goes on to be all rosey nice about it. AND i'll add we all ignore you tam except me cause i love responding to your moronic lamenting ( EWWW better look up some more gibberish ya troll STFU yourself mister conservative perhaps you also tell women the same thing like that certain politician did eh? )
There is a reason its called a discussion forum and anyone , i repeat anyone who wishes to advocate censorship is a fascist nazi control freak bent on trying to stop the truth being said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OH and dont forget
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
popcorn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was fairly annoyed that I couldn't get the three additional tracks from "No, Virginia" (including one on which I was probably screaming in the background in St. Louis) on CD, either.
Shame. I would have paid good money for it, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Palmer is a clam
Neil Gaiman just donated another $500,000.00 to Scientology in 2010 through his business partner Mary Gaiman who received a “Gold Humanitarian Award.” Gaiman is a Scientologist and so is Amanda “I can’t play a note” Palmer.
http://forums.whyweprotest.net/304-celebrity-news/neil-gaimans-scieno-front-65295/
Amanda Palmer and Neil Gaiman belong to a cult that opposes free speech and free movement. Scientology runs prison camps for its members, litigates enemies into silence and is responsible for suicides and suspicious deaths worldwide. Gaiman grew up being audited and intimidated himself and is used to lying. He may not even realize he’s a hypocrite. Scientology persecutes gay men and woman, by supporting Prop 8 in CA along with so many crazy scams and crimes I can’t list here.
Neil Gaiman is the vitamin heir to Scientology and his family extract 6 million dollars a year in vitamin sales to Scientologists for their idiotic "Purification Rundown," where Scientologists consume toxic amounts of vitamins and sit around in saunas. Gaiman's two sisters, Claire Edwards (head of recruiting worldwide) and Lizzie Calciole (head of Wealden house, where Gaiman's writing career began) are high ranking Scientologist elites and would never allow Amanda Palmer near their fortune if she had not signed an agreement to support Scientology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
impaired. After a series of bizarre marketing moves that range from sexting and making racist remarksinvolving the KKK she now decides to mock the disabled. Amanda Palmer isnt
interesting, just a desperate joke. Amanda Palmer should be in a mental ward,
not on a stage. Palmer is the product of a Sea Org family who married into the higher ranking Scientology Gaiman family. She gives millions to the cult of Scientology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]