Dan Bull, Amanda Palmer & El-P: A Big Week For Artists' Voices On Techdirt
from the change-of-pace dept
Today, instead of the usual community favorites post, we wanted to take the opportunity to highlight our own top picks for the week. It was an easy choice, because we love it when artists and creators visit the site to speak about their experiences, and this week we were lucky enough to have guest posts from three different musicians. They all had a lot of great stuff to say, and here are a few highlights.
The first came about as a result of my post on rapper/producer El-P's friendly message to fans who downloaded the early leak of his album. El-P joined the comments, then followed up with a guest post discussing his approach to the music industry, and his thoughts on the popular debates about it:
So how do I feel? What's the right way? Fuck if I know. But I'll adapt and I'll do it with respect and class and not kicking and screaming. There's a hell of a lot I could say about both sides of this particular subject, but honestly does it matter? You all have formed your opinions on it already and in the end people like me are still out here trying to make a living no matter what those opinions are... right, wrong or in-between.
Unfortunately the comment thread on that post was hijacked by one particularly obnoxious AC, but amidst the noise there was also a strong response from some community members who were grateful to El-P for sharing his frank and thoughtful opinion, just as we were.
Next, we got a visit from the one and only Amanda Fucking Palmer! Amidst all the excitement surrounding her Kickstarter project, Amanda deftly employed an allegory about bamboo to describe the campaign's massive success, and the many years of work that made it possible:
There's a great story about how bamboo grows. A farmer plants a bamboo shoot underground, and waters and tends it for about three years. Nothing grows that's visible, but the farmer trots out there, tending to this invisible thing with a certain amount of faith that things are going to work out. When the bamboo finally appears above ground, it can shoot up to thirty feet in a month. This is like my kickstarter campaign. The numbers aren't shocking to me, not at all. I set the goal for the kickstarter at $100,000 hoping we'd make it quickly, and hoping we'd surpass it by a long-shot.
Incidentally, as I pointed out on Twitter, Amanda Palmer is an anagram for A Mr. Panda Meal. Coincidence?
Last but not least, Dan Bull took a break from writing epic raps to write an epic post. After Dan successfully used the Pirate Bay and its Promo Bay program to get his new single on the charts, we wondered what he must think about his country's decision to censor the site. Now we have our answer: he thinks it was pretty damn ridiculous.
Now, thanks to the High Court ruling, no aspiring musician will be able to use The Promo Bay to gain exposure in the UK. Once again, the British Phonographic Industry is throttling any channel of distribution which doesn't allow them the cut to which they believe they are entitled. I'd like to see what the BPI's head, Geoff Taylor, has to say to George Barnett, the unsigned British songwriter whose fanbase skyrocketed after being featured on The Promo Bay. The only thing that the BPI has done for George is to entirely prohibit his primary means of exposure.
Of course, those aren't the only choice words Dan has for the BPI.
Big thanks to El-P, Amanda Palmer and Dan Bull for stopping by and sharing their thoughts! For some other creators featured on Techdirt this week (just not in person), check out game developer Stardock's Jon Shafer on building a loyal fan base, producer Swizz Beatz on embracing technology, My Bloody Valentine's Kevin Shields on a dispute with Sony, and author Paulo Coelho's stats on his $0.99 ebook sale.
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, artists, bpi, dan bull, el-p, music industry, musicians, promo bay
Companies: kickstarter, the pirate bay
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...Well, I had to ask.
[ 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: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congrats to Dan, Amanda and El-P!
it's nice to see so many CHOICES for musicians to express themselves, and it's nice to see so many musicians coming forward to express the desire for an ethical internet that compensates them fairly for their labor!
http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/roll-call-musicians-for-an-ethical-internet/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Congrats to Dan, Amanda and El-P!
Dude, seriously, take your spamming elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What the hell are you trying to say - are you just looking for AdWords
Hard to tell, since you seem to have significant problems with the following:
* Coherent sentences of any kind - actually there are no sentences in your post
* Any sort of punctuation - there is none in your post.
Was you post composed as some sort of a Spam effort, and you just totally fucked it up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I really do not have the patience to deal seriously with this kind of lazy crap.
I suggest that all ignore the poster from this point on.
If you are too lazy to actually use sentences, with at least an attempt at punctuation, you do not deserve a serious response to your post -- so I will give you a Fez final response:
("I said good day!")
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
some koo-koo-kwazy pomo trollin' ! ! !
while not as challenging as the usual attempts at pathetic 'arguments', this has a certain cluelessness and desperate flailing that is charming...
particularly amusing was the self-incriminating: "Was you post..."
coming from a grammar-nazi troll, that is priceless stuff...
IF you actually had some basis for the plaint, it surely was not enunciated in any discernible fashion...
irony, its what's for dinner ! ! !
hee hee hee
ho ho ho
ha ha ha
ak ak ak
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.cracked.com/photoplasty_365_everyday-life-as-misunderstood-by-politicians_p14/#10
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tasty Trio
One is pirated (EI-P)
One is a pirate (Bull)
And one benefits from the 'kickstart' her established record label gave her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tasty Trio
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tasty Trio
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tasty Trio
Why do you hate artists so much, A.C.? Why are you against them getting paid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, shame on the hecklers for belittling these artists for being brave enough to innovate. Trying something new is scary enough by itself without being bullied for it at the same time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Amanda Palmer is genuine and hard working. One swallow does not make a summer however.
EI-P doesn't appear to want his work taken without him being asked.
Good luck to the guy. He's genuine too, so people who want to support him should buy his music instead of sharing it before it's even been released.
Dan Bull and 'integrity' don't go in the same sentence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
El-P, record label founder: Such a great guy
Amanda Palmer, Independent artist: Flash in the pan
Dan Bull, Independent artist: OMG! Filthy pirate! How dare he work around the artificial barriers to entry!
Now, nothing against El-P, he seems to understand and accept how the world now works. That he was willing to come here and discuss it speaks volumes for him. What I want to know is why can't the RIAA shills, and their bought and paid for "artists", who post here under the name AC show the same level of understanding?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is exactly why one guy put fire on himself and died in the Middle-East starting a revolution there, because the authorities that be took his way of living by taking away his fruit cart which he used to make a living, in the same way IP laws do the same thing everyday to a lot of people and that is why nobody will ever respect that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It would be great if you actually knew what you were talking about.
I criticised Bull for pirating super expensive software he didn't need to make great music. I actually didn't criticise him for pirating Cubase, although I wouldn't have done that myself.
As to the crap about not being able to find anything.
Reaper - it's as good as Cubase, it's a one click download from the Cockos website. It costs $60.
The Techdirt community dreams there are no alternative music tools that are easy to download and cheap. Techdirt is wrong.
The Techdirt community seems to think there is only one way to distribute your finished track - Pirate Bay. Again Techdirt is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nope, we don't. Not once has any of us said "Either release your music on Piratebay or don't release it at all" or words to that effect.
I personally don't care what software Dan Bull uses to create his music, or whether or not he paid for it. What I do care about is the fact that his music, once created, was intended for the Piratebay, but the BPI, after screaming "ARTISTS ARTISTS ARTISTS!" got British ISPs to block the Piratebay.
The very fact that even one artist wants to release music on the Piratebay makes a complete falsehood of BPI's claims. In fact, if Dan Bull were to sue them over grounds of trying to monopolise music distribution methods or of trying to block independent artists, I would support him all the way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You have yet to point out where he said he used that product.
He bought and paid for Cubase, and it sucked chunks and finally crapped out. He then downloaded a cracked copy of something he already paid for and it worked. You like to gloss over that portion of the statement, to rather focus on how he went and got something else super expensive while talking about Reaper being just as good.
What year did Reaper launch?
At launch was is as good as Cubase or is it today a cheaper alternative with the same feature set as it evolved?
You seem to think that he used a program he never used. You are wrong.
You seem to think that your the authority on music. You are wrong.
Funny there is Bandcamp, YouTube, and a whole buncha other ways indies are getting their music out there... and they have all been mentioned here.
But your forced perspective attempt to take a discussion about TPB and assume it was claimed it is the only way is well short sighted and shows a lack of imagination on your part.
Never assume... it mostly just makes an ass out of you.
Oh and by all means talk about Reaper and Cockos and $60... if you say it enough times you might be able to SEO it higher up the foodchain.
You suck as a shill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
He specifically wrote he downloaded 'industry standard software costing thousands of pounds'. Cubase doesn't cost thousands of pound, nor is it industry standard.
Pro Tools is the industry standard DAW, Ableton and Logic are pretty standard for urban/dance music. And yes, Reaper is every bit as functional as Cubase.
Here's the thing you all can't get your heads around.
You don't need software costing thousands of pounds to record and release superb hip-hop.
If you want to work digitally you need a computer, basic interface and a DAW (Reaper $60). You need a sampler, hardware or software, and a microphone.
That's it!
As 'beatz' are fundamental you might want a sampling drum machine, but that's a luxury as Reaper and a software sampler can play that role.
So once again, Bull is operating on off the backs of abusing other young workers, when he DOESN'T EVEN HAVE TO.
That AC doesn't know that answer to those questions because he/she has never used any of that software, never played and instrument, never sang or performed or recorded. He/she is a cubicle employee behind a desk. If not, he/she would do like other artists and identify themselves.
Wouldn't it be great for you if that were true. Sadly for you it isn't. You don't seem to be able to handle someone with more music experience than Bull telling you he's wrong, so you can only seek to persuade yourself and others that person (me) has no clue what they are talking about. In fact it's you (and Bull) who have no clue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fuck no, use LMMS - Linux Multimedia Station or any of the dozens of free open source DAW's today available with thousands of free plugins.
Now lets face it, not many musicians know about the great and free open source alternatives yet and so they are forced to use the proprietary solutions out of ignorance.
Cubase will have to compete with free either way at least by being pirate it is slowing down the adoption of others free and open solutions, so Dan Bull in this case is helping that crappy proprietary solution for the moment.
Quote:
How do you know that, I used LMMS, Hydrogen (the easiest way to create a beat in a pinch) and I know of places to get free audio samples that are growing in numbers.
http://linux-sound.org/sounds.html
So Dan Bull may out of ignorance being lured to proprietary traps when he doesn't have too when those proprietary traps should never exist in the first place.
Monopolies are still monopolies and they have very bad repercussions for society, like making criminals out of people who want to work and create something when they shouldn't be, your appeal to law is a fallacy well know, it ignores the fact that what is law is not always what is just and right and nobody should ever have the force to stop others from copying anything.
Why it is abusing when I copy software but not when I copy a chair or a dish from a restaurant?
The crazy party that believes others should never copy without permission is the one that is wrong, the laws are wrong and now everybody is seeing that.
To stop copying is to stop others from reaching resources that they need to make a living how is that fair, just or in any way acceptable?
You say it is abuse to copy something I say it is not, it is indispensable for learning and innovation, without it Cubase probably wouldn't be able to exist in the first place, because they surely copied everything from elsewhere, being copied is natural as is copying others, without it we wouldn't be able to have a society because nobody would be able to copy anything, nobody would be able to use anything and you think that is reasonable?
You are the one that don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It all seems to make perfect sense to you guys, but only if you can eliminate the other young workers from your mind .
I'm not even arguing about whether it's stealing, or copying, or sharing.
The cold hard fact is the music software workers don't get paid unless we support them by buying the product.
If you download the software against that company's wishes, you are not financially supporting a small business, primarily made up of a few, young innovators in the same generation as Bull.
In effect, you're happy to see people put in the work to create something useful for you, but you are unwilling to support their efforts.
You may be ok with that. I'm not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um, just so you know, "music software workers" don't get paid royalties. They earn the same salary whether people buy the software or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just so you know, being able to copy something is not the same thing as not supporting that thing.
Red Hat is making a lot of money and everybody can copy, distribute, and modify the software why do people pay Red Hat or any other open source project for that matter?
The way I see it, being able to copy is a good thing for the young minds because they keep what they used to create something and if they move on from a company they can use that knowledge for their advantage, it is also a good thing for anyone trying to make a tool, better for programmers that will be hired to implement things that weren't there, everybody wins in that case, but with proprietary crap, the worker gets nothing, users get the shaft over and over again and people keep paying a handful of people for doing that instead of doing what they need.
Open source gives you the ability to change something, if you are not capable you hire someone who is and implement that for you so you are creating a local market not one distant from your local community how is that bad in any way?
You may be ok with monopolies I am not, I recognize what they do, they funnel all the resources to the hands of a few who in time become lazy and don't want to work anymore, that is the only thing it does all the while locking the means by which others make money it doesn't incentivate anything and you are ok with that?
Copying is not a problem, is the solution.
I can't see how in any capacity copying something takes away another person ability to sell anything unless he is incompetent which means he didn't deserve to be in the market in the first place.
Copying at worst limits your market share, it doesn't stop your from dominating it or becoming a millionaire, IP law on the other hand only empowers the burocrats that create nothing an leech off of others who really create something.
It may have been useful in the past, that is not true today, maybe a century ago it was something that was good, it is not today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's not for you to decide if they should've gone open source or not.
The fact is they didn't, but Bull copied their product because he wanted it. He didn't choose an open source version instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And when are you going to remove the Anonymous Coward name? We'd like to know who we are dealing with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I've glossed over it because it's completely irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes I am very happy and grateful that people creates things that I can use, I also am happy to have created things that people do use, and that is fair and just, I create they use it, I compete with my own creations while copying others and learning from their successes and failures. I support the projects that I like with work and money, being able to copy doesn't stop that and you wanna know why?
Because I fucking can't do everything by myself inside society and achieve a great standard of living, I can survive sure, I can do a lot, but I still need others to work to free my time so I can do other things, what I don't need is somebody with a sense of entitlement saying he owns a piece of knowledge or that nobody else can do it because he did it first or forcing ridiculous rules that nobody ever will ever fallow and trying to call anybody who disagrees with it a criminal, well they are not, the real criminals are people like you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At launch was is as good as Cubase or is it today a cheaper alternative with the same feature set as it evolved? "
That AC doesn't know that answer to those questions because he/she has never used any of that software, never played and instrument, never sang or performed or recorded. He/she is a cubicle employee behind a desk. If not, he/she would do like other artists and identify themselves.
No credibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not sure how I feel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not sure how I feel
The "millionaire writer of some sort" is Neil Gaiman, author of Sandman, Neverwhere, Coraline, etc. He's not poor by any means, but neither is he the type that has $200K just lying around.
And, perhaps she needs to lean on her fanbase because she's an independent woman who doesn't mooch off her husband? Just a guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
It's one thing when Kickstarter is being used to finance people who would struggle to get financial backing, but it's another when established, well-off artists are leeching off their fanbase. Music isn't a charity -- it's a luxury.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
Yep, 15th century bards sure had it made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
$200,000 isn't chump change. You could literally buy a fully decked out home recording studio with all the latest gear. What's more, she's being handed it on a silver platter. That's the very definition of luxury. Far different than going out and earning it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
On the plus side she may be able to experiment more and show the way to others who are not so fortunate, plus she is doing nothing wrong at the moment, I don't see her trying to stop anybody from copying anything, trying to say how it should be used or anything like that or in that direction so what is the real problem?
You just don't like her?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
How do you differentiate between a "vanity project" and every other artist making an album? I'm really curious. How is this a "vanity project" and, say, a Miles Davis album not? Or are all record albums "vanity projects?"
Whatever the case, many people want it, enough to voluntarily support her making the album. That suggests that it's not just a "vanity project" to me.
nobody REQUIRES $200,000 in order to produce and promote an album, yet she's already got around half a million.
If you're working with some fairly big names, and hiring a lot of studio musicians, then $200K is actually not a lot of money. It's roughly what she spent on her last album (which she paid for herself, incidentally - she never got reimbursed by Roadrunner).
...But even if she did get more than she needs, so what? Once she reached her goal, people could have stopped paying on Kickstarter. They didn't. Whatever you may think, nobody who supports her cares that she makes a lot of money. Good for her. She deserves it.
If "other smaller acts are getting maybe a couple thousand for funding their albums and promotion," then that's their problem, not hers. Besides, it's not like Amanda is taking money away from these smaller acts. It is not a zero-sum game.
And I have absolutely no idea why you keep harping on her marriage with Gaiman. Artists have married other artists for as long as art has been around. That doesn't mean they don't keep working independently, and it doesn't mean they stop earning money independently. I mean, it's an absurd notion.
What is with you, anyway? Why are you even upset about any of this? The only thing she's guilty of is being a successful artist. Do you have a problem with successful artists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
"How do you differentiate between a 'vanity project' and every other artist making an album? I'm really curious. How is this a 'vanity project' and, say, a Miles Davis album not? Or are all record albums 'vanity projects?'"
Label artists are fronted money by the labels and then owe the money back, albeit through a completely one-sided contract which favors the labels. Independent artists tend to either fund their own projects or get a small loan from a financial backer who typically wants it back + interest.
Amanda Palmer already has the means to both create her album and promote it. Therefore, asking her fans to essentially front her almost a quarter of a million is vanity and nothing but. I've never seen an artist ask his/her fanbase for so much money.
"Whatever the case, many people want it, enough to voluntarily support her making the album. That suggests that it's not just a 'vanity project' to me."
It can only be one of two things: a necessity or a vanity. You need food to eat; nobody needs $200,000 to promote an album. Indeed, one of the oft-covered topics here on Techdirt is how the internet has changed the face of the free market. Promotion is cheaper and easier than it's ever been -- the corporate middle-man is becoming a thing of the past. Besides, she's already established, so just how much more 'promotion' does she require? $200,000 worth? Moreover, she's not earning it via work -- she's asking for a handout. That's vanity, plain and simple.
"If you're working with some fairly big names, and hiring a lot of studio musicians, then $200K is actually not a lot of money. It's roughly what she spent on her last album (which she paid for herself, incidentally - she never got reimbursed by Roadrunner)."
Sure, if you're working on a big project which necessitates top-tier session musicians, that can cost some serious bread. But from what I understand, her new album is already finished, so your argument doesn't wash.
"...But even if she did get more than she needs, so what? Once she reached her goal, people could have stopped paying on Kickstarter. They didn't. Whatever you may think, nobody who supports her cares that she makes a lot of money. Good for her. She deserves it."
She's not earning any of that money through hard work; she's having it handed to her. Granted, if people want to throw money her way, that's their choice. She could've stopped the Kickstarter funding after she hit her (ridiculous) goal, but she didn't. She's not running a charity, she's just collecting free money at this point.
"If 'other smaller acts are getting maybe a couple thousand for funding their albums and promotion,' then that's their problem, not hers. Besides, it's not like Amanda is taking money away from these smaller acts. It is not a zero-sum game."
That's not "their problem" so much as it is that they're not looking to spoil themselves, hence why I brought them up. Seriously, what independent artist goes around asking their fanbase for about a quarter-million just to put themselves over?
"And I have absolutely no idea why you keep harping on her marriage with Gaiman. Artists have married other artists for as long as art has been around. That doesn't mean they don't keep working independently, and it doesn't mean they stop earning money independently. I mean, it's an absurd notion."
You cannot ignore the fact that she's fully capable of supporting herself. Having a millionaire for a husband only reinforces that fact.
"What is with you, anyway? Why are you even upset about any of this? The only thing she's guilty of is being a successful artist. Do you have a problem with successful artists?"
You're twisting the argument around. Not once did I level a complaint against her for being successful. I've already explained why I have an issue with this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
No 'indie' artist would even consider an album budget of $200,000.
All but the biggest mainstream acts are working in home studios of some sort or other. With drum and keyboard programming being the basis of much music these days, it's crazy to spend commercial studio money programming when you can do it at home.
Even vocals and final mixing are often done in home style studios.
So that leaves real drums, orchestral instruments and maybe some guitars.
Where I live, commercial studio prices have been slashed in half over the last 12 to 24 months.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
Seriously, here's a well-off, established artist asking her fans to pay for her promotional campaign and at $200,000 no less. She's already collected almost half a million.
I see little difference between her taking advantage of her fans' generosity and the labels' sense of entitlement. If I've learned nothing else, her fans are EXTREMELY generous folks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
Did she mislead them in any way?
Did she lied to them?
Did she deceived them?
She asked for the money and they gave her, what is the problem?
That you got nothing?
That you can make others give you that much?
You want others to produce music without any financial incentives?
What is your point exactly?
She sold a service to people and they bought it, now I am having a hard time trying to understand where the problems are with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
There is nothing there except someone who apparently doesn't like that another person is having people give them money.
Now please where is your point?
Do you even have one?
Or is just, "I don't know what it is, but I know it is wrong" things?
She sold the promise of a record to people and they paid for it?
I would never fund her because it is not CC-by-SA music and so I don't really care but she is not one of the evil ones, as far as things go she seems pretty nice and I didn't see she lying to anyone, deceiving anyone, so there must be something to it, what is that you saw that is the problem?
The part where she is married to a rich guy?
That is not an issue, if it was nobody rich or married to a rich person should ever work right?
The part where you unmistakably believe Kickstarters should be only for some people and not others?
I can't comprehend that, because personally I don't care, she could be filthy rich and asking for money and if it was for a good reason I give it to her and so did many people, is there are problem with free will that you don't like it?
If you feel used don't fund her, if she gets money from others and make schmucks out of them I guarantee you it will e a one time deal in this day and age.
So exactly where is the problem, since you apparently have no good reason to say what you said except maybe the most common reason for it being "I just don't like that person" or is it the business model that you are trying to discredit? or is it because she turned a profit?
I don't think people care as long as they get what they were promised is all good.
Was anybody promised something she didn't deliver?
You think there should be a limit to what people can gain, why? is there any good reason to not let the market decide what the ceiling should be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
And no, I don't have a problem with people using Kickstarter. I do have a problem with people who take advantage of others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
You see I don't have a problem with rich people, I don't care that they are mostly dickheads and get strange/creepy(e.g.: the guy with a toupee - I forget his name, but he is famous - suing Ireland because they are building a windfarm in front of his property) in their old age, what I do care is when they use that power to get benefits at the cost of others inside society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
That seems to be what people around here can't understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
So what if her husband is richer than the president? Who the fuck cares?
First there have been the many claims from the AC-shills that people just want stuff for free, they don't support artists, because they keep downloading shit from the Pirate Bay.
Except that here, clearly people want to support an artist, to the sum of half a million USD, and again that's bad, because the artist is already rich enough.
You people really don't know when to quit, do you?
If a large group of people are willing to spend a total of 500,000 USD on an artist, and they weren't forced in any way, just be glad for the artist and move on. It's not like people are twisting your arm to contribute, are they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
Do let's. I'm always open to ways artists can make money.
Label artists are fronted money by the labels and then owe the money back, albeit through a completely one-sided contract which favors the labels. Independent artists tend to either fund their own projects or get a small loan from a financial backer who typically wants it back + interest.
I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Kickstarter is exactly the business model of "get[ting] a small loan from a financial backer who typically wants it back + interest." People contribute to her Kickstarter campaign, fully aware of what money it's already raised, and get certain things back from it depending upon how much they contributed. What's the problem?
Amanda Palmer already has the means to both create her album and promote it.
Leaving aside the fact that it's not true, let's assume for the sake of argument that it is. So what? Plenty of rich folks have been artists. You're saying that they shouldn't be artists, that they shouldn't raise money to produce their art. You can belive that all you want, but Amanda's fans won't listen - they actually know better, and realize that every artist needs support from their fans.
I've never seen an artist ask his/her fanbase for so much money.
Every time an artists demands that people pay for their work, they're asking their fanbase for so much money. That fanbase can either choose to give it to them (if it's valuable enough to them), or they can not. Amanda is no different than artists who demand that anyone pay for a copy of their work. And she's giving them more value for the money.
It can only be one of two things: a necessity or a vanity.
That leaves out all art, since nobody needs art to eat. You're really suggesting that art is worthless? I'm not.
Indeed, one of the oft-covered topics here on Techdirt is how the internet has changed the face of the free market.
Indeed, Amanda is a great example of how the internet has changed the face of the free market. Without a middleman, she is going direct to consumers, and actually giving them what they are willing to pay for. That's pretty much free market in a nutshell.
Sure, if you're working on a big project which necessitates top-tier session musicians, that can cost some serious bread. But from what I understand, her new album is already finished, so your argument doesn't wash.
Here's where you're confused. Her album is not already finished. She's raising money for its production.
Even the most ardent "artist-haters" here on Techdirt (and yes, that should be in quotes) would admit that this is exactly what most workers do.
She's not earning any of that money through hard work; she's having it handed to her.
This is pre-production, so every dollar she earns will make a better album. The people who contribute are making sure that no expense is spared making an album that will be of the highest quality possible.
What, exactly, is wrong with that?
And if you think making a pro-level album does not take hard work (as muh as any ditch-digger or computer programmer), then you don't know jack shit about creating music.
Seriously, what independent artist goes around asking their fanbase for about a quarter-million just to put themselves over?
Every single independent artist who thinks they can ask that much. If indie artists believed they could ask for more and get it, then trust me, they would. And nobody would blame them if they did. Certainly not me, or any other artist I know, that's for sure.
You cannot ignore the fact that she's fully capable of supporting herself.
So is everyone else who makes music, especially if they have a day job (which Amanda did, for many years). Are you saying that once an artist becomes successful, they should take a day job to pay the bills? That's what you're implying, at least for all those musicians (like myself, and until recently Amanda) should be required to do.
Or are you saying that anyone who wants to record an album should fill out a form listing all of their family's assets, and be denied unless they're "needy" enough?
Seriously, who cares? Every single artist I know is "capable of supporting themselves." If they weren't, they'd be dead. So no artists deserve anyone's money, then? Seriously, that seems to be what you're saying, and I just can't get behind that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
The fact that she asked for $200,000 from her fans and is allowing it to spill over. BTW, it's not a loan, it's a donation.
"Leaving aside the fact that it's not true, let's assume for the sake of argument that it is. So what? Plenty of rich folks have been artists. You're saying that they shouldn't be artists, that they shouldn't raise money to produce their art. You can belive that all you want, but Amanda's fans won't listen - they actually know better, and realize that every artist needs support from their fans."
You continue to conflate *earning* financial support with *asking for* financial support. My issue is two-fold: she's already capable of both producing and promoing her own work and she's well-off as it is. It's akin to a wealthy person begging others to pay for his project because he doesn't feel like doing so himself.
"That leaves out all art, since nobody needs art to eat. You're really suggesting that art is worthless? I'm not."
Now you're twisting my words around. I never said that art was "worthless" -- I said that it was not a necessity. You don't need art in order to survive like you do food, water, oxygen, etc.
"Here's where you're confused. Her album is not already finished. She's raising money for its production.
Even the most ardent 'artist-haters' here on Techdirt (and yes, that should be in quotes) would admit that this is exactly what most workers do."
Except for the people who refuse to have success handed to them. Apparently some artists just expect everything to be handed to them, much like a major label suit expecting X artist to generate him profit.
"This is pre-production, so every dollar she earns will make a better album. The people who contribute are making sure that no expense is spared making an album that will be of the highest quality possible."
Once again, who requires $200,000+ in order to click 'record' on a DAW?
"And if you think making a pro-level album does not take hard work (as muh as any ditch-digger or computer programmer), then you don't know jack shit about creating music."
Poor analogy. Ditch-digging doesn't generate much income and is far more tiresome than sitting back and deciding," Hmm, I wonder if I should add a drum fill after the second chorus..."
"Every single independent artist who thinks they can ask that much. If indie artists believed they could ask for more and get it, then trust me, they would. And nobody would blame them if they did. Certainly not me, or any other artist I know, that's for sure."
You really don't know much about recording music, do you? Today it costs next to nothing to record your own music. The only things which cost money are equipment, instruments (+ treatment when necessary) and the session musicians, which is optional. And even so, that still doesn't cost no $200,000.
"So is everyone else who makes music, especially if they have a day job (which Amanda did, for many years). Are you saying that once an artist becomes successful, they should take a day job to pay the bills? That's what you're implying, at least for all those musicians (like myself, and until recently Amanda) should be required to do.
Or are you saying that anyone who wants to record an album should fill out a form listing all of their family's assets, and be denied unless they're 'needy' enough?"
You make it sound as if she's in the poor house. My point is that she's an established artist who's essentially taking donations from her fans as if she were poor. I already know you'd say something like, "Good, she deserves it," which you're free to believe. But... isn't Kickstarter supposed to be for financing artistic pursuits and such which otherwise would never get off the ground?
"Seriously, who cares? Every single artist I know is 'capable of supporting themselves.' If they weren't, they'd be dead. So no artists deserve anyone's money, then? Seriously, that seems to be what you're saying, and I just can't get behind that."
There's a stark difference between being self-sufficient and being well beyond self-sufficient yet asking for more money. But oh well. If people want to hand money over to someone who's wealthy, so be it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
"Here's where you're confused. Her album is not already finished. She's raising money for its production."
As it says on the signs she's holding up on her YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TveAzAs6NAY), "Now we need money to promote, mix, manufacture, and distribute it around the world."
No WAY does that cost $200,000, unless she's looking to plaster full-page ads in major publications and run TV spots, in which case she'd just be lining the pockets of the corporate elites she's supposedly rebelling against with your donation money.
Mixing/Mastering an album doesn't cost much, maybe several hundred dollars to a grand.
Distribution is also not much of a problem. Fist there's digital distribution which costs practically nothing. Then there's the physicals which can always be ordered in appropriate volume to meet demand.
I call bogus on her claim to need $200,000.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
Mixing and mastering are definitely part of the production process. If you've recorded the album, what you have are a bunch of raw tracks.
You also left out the part where she's doing a companion art book to the record, and the fact that she's doing a worldwide tour. These things cost money too.
Mixing/Mastering an album doesn't cost much, maybe several hundred dollars to a grand.
When you get to the level that Amanda is at, mixing and mastering cost much more than a grand.
Hell, even at the level I'm at (which is way, way down the food chain), I couldn't get a record mixed and mastered for that. Even the mastering alone costs around $600 - and for that, you get an anonymous engineer using digital plug-ins. Or, if you're doing vinyl, a guy twiddling a knob on the Westrex.
If you want professional mixing and mastering, with skilled engineers and high-end studio equipment, you're going to be paying several thousand dollars at least. The mixing alone can run in the tens of thousands.
It's similar with promotion. If you want your songs on the radio in multiple countries (for example), it's going to cost you.
This isn't the only way to do it, of course. Digital production and distribution has made things much cheaper. And that's not just good, it's outstanding. But that doesn't mean there isn't a need for professionals, and Amanda is at the level where those professionals are needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
Essentially what Amanda Palmer is doing is having her fans act in place of a label by making them pay all of her expenses, which is their choice, but I still don't agree with it. It leaves me with a sour impression and reinforces the notion that in order to create a musical work of substantial quality requires a large spending purse. That's how the major labels sucker people into believing just because they overspend in order to keep their artists in debt.
Anyone with the know-how can record an entire album and distribute it at no or little cost. Indeed, there isn't much of a quality difference between what the major labels are putting out and independent artists working from the comfort of home.
What's done is done. Amanda Palmer marketed herself to her fans and got the financial support she was looking for. No dissenting opinion will change this fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
What happens if a project reaches its funding goal before time expires?
Nothing really. Projects continue to accept pledges until the funding deadline. There is no option to end a project early.
http://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/creating%20a%20project#ManaYourProj
So how exactly is Amanda supposed to close the Kickstarter campaign?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
I thought 'Team Palmer' were in contact with fans daily. Making thousands of phone calls and sending emails every day.
They could just inform fans they had reached their goal. Did they do that?
I recently sent a donation to an independent movie project. A couple of weeks ago, before finishing the edit even, they reached their financial goal. They announced this info on their site, through the donation site, on various relevant forums, and to fans via email.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
Have you ever even looked at a single Kickstarter campaign, because you sound like you know nothing about them.
It's right there on the page, it states the intended goal, and the current amount raised.
If people then still want to donate, perhaps because they like a certain perk that comes with the donation (in essence you buy the perk with the donation), then they can fucking still do it. It's not like people are being forced to give money.
And if Amanda Palmer estimated a cost of 200,000 dollars, then so be it. Production of physical disks and shipping it across the world can get expensive. And mixing and stuff like that, if you want to hire a good mixer, someone who has talent, that costs serious money too.
You can argue left and right, point is, that she made an estimated amount she'd like to raise to finish her album and get it into the hands of her fans, and people gave her money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not sure how I feel
So kudos to Amanda for wanting to do it on her own.
I have also noticed that when she does get things on her own, she enjoys it much more knowing she worked hard and achieved a goal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
How else do you make ends meet in the music business? Do the labels run on unicorns and fairy dust?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
It's one thing when you're making money touring, album sales, merch, etc. and quite another when you're asking for money. It would be understandable if she was a minor artist with poor financial backing ...but she's not. What, she can't hit the record button on her DAW without $200,000 or something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
Which completely misses the point of Kickstarter. By definition of being a backer, you get albums and merch for paying. Even the lowest tier gives you the (presumably MP3 or FLAC when it's out) album and other content only for those who backed. All above tiers come with additional content and merchandise.
Your entire ranting against her then is based on ignorance that can be cleared up simply by bothering to read the Kickstarter page to find out what the money is actually going towards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
I'm guessing Lady Gaga isn't exactly poor either. So why is handing over money to her for shiny plastic disks and MP3's any less reasonable than handing over money to Amanda Palmer for...MP3's, plastic disks, vinyl records and art books? Looking at the Kickstarter tiers, the options for Amanda Palmer are actually more reasonable. $1 for the album, extra songs and backer only content? Then how are the labels getting away with 99c a song?
The only way your analogy would make sense is if the rich dude was also giving new sports cars to those who backed him, at a more reasonable price than most other dealers would sell them at. I'm really not sure how that'd be a bad thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
So what is the real issue here?
That people are doing music for the money?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
You apparently only have problems with people giving money to rich independent artists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel
That's their choice, but it doesn't mean that I don't have the right to express a dissenting view.
"So what if her husband is richer than the president? Who the fuck cares?"
I do because it validates my point.
"First there have been the many claims from the AC-shills that people just want stuff for free, they don't support artists, because they keep downloading shit from the Pirate Bay.
Except that here, clearly people want to support an artist, to the sum of half a million USD, and again that's bad, because the artist is already rich enough.
You people really don't know when to quit, do you?"
You're lumping me in with the major label supporters even though I'm against them.
"If a large group of people are willing to spend a total of 500,000 USD on an artist, and they weren't forced in any way, just be glad for the artist and move on. It's not like people are twisting your arm to contribute, are they?"
No, they're not, but that in no way invalidates my stance.
"Ever person could see that the project has reached its goals,
Have you ever even looked at a single Kickstarter campaign, because you sound like you know nothing about them.
It's right there on the page, it states the intended goal, and the current amount raised.
If people then still want to donate, perhaps because they like a certain perk that comes with the donation (in essence you buy the perk with the donation), then they can fucking still do it. It's not like people are being forced to give money."
That's true.
"And if Amanda Palmer estimated a cost of 200,000 dollars, then so be it. Production of physical disks and shipping it across the world can get expensive. And mixing and stuff like that, if you want to hire a good mixer, someone who has talent, that costs serious money too."
Here's where I flat-out disagree because the facts are not in line with your reasoning. If it truly cost $200,000 or thereabouts just to mix/produce an album, it would be virtually impossible for independent artists to create and sell their own albums around the world. Yet that's not the case at all.
"You can argue left and right, point is, that she made an estimated amount she'd like to raise to finish her album and get it into the hands of her fans, and people gave her money."
That's true, just like I'm free to give my opinion.
"And people pay a lot of money to the rich Lady Gaga. Ever looked at ticket prices for her concerts?"
They're a rip-off. So? Just because the major labels are crooked doesn't automatically give Amanda Palmer a free pass.
"You apparently only have problems with people giving money to rich independent artists?"
Care to prove that assessment because I certainly do not. It seems to me you're just grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to discredit me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not sure how I feel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I absolutely know that.
They earn the same salary whether people buy the software or not.
Except most aren't simply employees. Most music software is created and sold by the same person, i.e. young entrepreneurs.
You're ripping off young people with innovative ideas who have put their own money into realising those ideas as a product. So no, they don't get paid whether the product sells or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ 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 isn’t 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 ]