Amanda Palmer On The True Nature Of Connecting With Fans: It's About Trust
from the helping-each-other-support-each-other dept
There's been so much talk about Amanda Palmer's TED talk this week, that the folks at TED rushed to get the video edited and up on the site within days, rather than the customary months. It is, not surprisingly, quite inspiring:And, as Amanda notes, one thing that she's learned throughout her life, from when she was a "human statue" working for tips to her massive success today, is that the whole thing begins and ends through the uniquely human connection -- and that this connection is not in one direction, but in many directions. It's the artist giving to fans, the fans giving to artists and, beyond that, the fans giving to other fans and artists giving to other artists. Whether it's crowdfunding or crowdsurfing, it's about building up a real relationship, and at the heart of that relationship is trust.
As Amanda notes at one point,
For most of human history musicians and artists have been a part of the community. Connectors and openers. Not untouchable stars. Celebrity is about a lot of people loving you from a distance. But the internet, and the content that we are freely able to share on it, are taking us back. It's about a few people loving you up close. And about those people being enough.I'd argue, in some ways, it's even more than that. What the internet has enabled is for artists and creators to reach out to wider and different communities than they could in the past -- meaning that that ability to connect and to be both supportive and supported can come about in unique and different ways. That historical context that Amanda discusses, used to be mostly bound by geography. Artists would connect with people nearby. But now, many more artists are able to connect and build a fan base that is "enough" by finding and bringing together that special and unique community that is right for them and them alone.
It's a message that is unquestionably true and incredibly powerful for those who recognize it, rather than fight it.
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, asking, community, connecting with fans, connection, true fans, trust
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Amanda Palmer for RIAA President
The feeling Palmer describes makes many in the music industry uncomfortable because it accentuates the bankrupt morality of a business model based on exploitation.As someone who's slept on a few of the same floors she did while on tour, I can tell you there's a reason Amanda Palmer is THE modern-day hero for musicians. Social bonding has always been the purpose of music. It's always been why we play. To say music is entertainment is like saying food is deliciousness. The nourishment music gives comes from shared experience -- literally SHARING MUSIC -- and yet for the last 100 years we've minimized that decade by decade until most came to think of music as purely an entertainment product.
The purpose of music is not to make people rich. The purpose is social bonding. If you accomplish social bonding -- the purpose of music -- it's human nature to reciprocate, to acknowledge value.
This is what all the folks at Trichordist and other musicians nostalgic for pre-Napster days have sadly forgotten in their holy war to force fans to pay for access to the music they originally created hoping for wide exposure, wide social bonding. They'll hide behind "it's about the music, man" but it's not about the music for them. They're obsessed with all the money they're losing. They're looking for someone to blame -- the fan, the industry, other musicians -- but they have no one to blame but themselves. They are losing money because they no longer are making connections. They are actually being negative and trying to put people off. I know I change the channel immediately when a Cracker song comes on. Wait, I always did that.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Well said, Amanda!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please have a nice day ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I finally get Amanda Palmer.
David
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I finally get Amanda Palmer.
David
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Getting Palmer
You don't get them, they get you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't wait to see how that works out...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I really don't want to see how poorly that goes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't watch TED
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't watch TED
If it's something to do with the TED site itself, here's the same video on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMj_P_6H69g
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can't watch TED
Now for the censorship topic: Ever heard of Nick Hanauer? Not on TED you won't, though his TED talk video is somewhat available elsewhere. I know that interest is a subjective thing, but I really defy you to find anyone who is unable to find at least one talk they find LESS interesting posted on TED. I personally have seen at least a dozen off the top of my head. Actually I think the keywords for this talk would be "true" and "important", or maybe even the local keyword "insightful"--but you will NOT see it on TED.
The reason I mention "interest" is because TED claimed that was the basis for censoring it. In reality, the reason was obviously that what Mr Hanauer said would offend at least some of their rich donors, and TED is VERY interested in keeping the money flowing.
In fact, TED says his topic is so unimportant and uninteresting that they will not even permit discussions of the matter. I actually had the temerity to suggest that it had become MORE relevant at a later time. In case you didn't know, TED moderates all comments. Not just to prevent spam, but to CENSOR topics they don't want discussed. Is it possible that Nick Hanauer's talk has become more interesting over time? I actually think so, and there will be periodic peaks into the future, too--but NOT for any discussion on TED.
I admit that I am really sensitive about censorship. I think even the worst ideas cannot be made to go away simply by pretending they don't exist--but there are plenty of times when good ideas are censored precisely because they bother someone who is defending a worse idea. I'm not sure what is the best example to cite... Did you know that FM radio was effectively censored for many years because GE held the key patents and didn't want to interfere with their profits from AM radio? Or maybe the google's new censorship policies is a better example?
Back to the topic at hand: TED censors certain talks and then lies about why. No TED for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Can't watch TED
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hwLMBdnbXk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Can't watch TED
Doing the search (DuckDuckGo) there was a whole lot of discussion of the fact that TED had censored it. In light of this public discussion of the subject, it seems to me that TED is listening to sponsors a lot more than their community.
So, not listening to TED means you miss a whole lot that is important. While you might view the totality of their world perspective with jaundice, viewing what is there does not prevent you from searching for and viewing other sources, and highlighting that point of view.
In the meantime maintain your perspective, and enumerate and discuss any censorship by TED in other public forums, as you have done today.
Rather than boycotting TED to your own loss, just continue to expose their censorship. Got any other examples?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't watch TED
Now that they have a soap box one that people listen to it, others players start to move behind the curtains those are the powerful people, I know this sound tin foil hat material, but the truth is there are individuals that hold a lot of influence and can bring a lot of heat and pain to those who don't comply, they mostly do that through economic means, they make something start to depend on large amounts of money and then they start to demand things get done a certain way or else the funding goes away, TED today is not a garage reunion, most talks are lavish in their surroundings you can see it on the videos, it didn't start that way, some TED talks are given in other places in open grounds under tents, this is how it started, they get things wrong because they also don't have the money to hire people to look at what is good or bad, which doesn't happen on TED America or TED Europe because they got the money to spend on support staff.
The good news is Mr. Nick Hanauer is right if nobody cares or can't afford something that thing becomes irrelevant, and so it could happen to TED if people start moving away from it.
Which makes me think that maybe a better way is to make Mr. Nick Hanauer well known to the point where TED would not be able to ignore it, that could happen in several ways but I am biased towards competition, we may not need to destroy TED just create an alternative to it that will compete and force the hard issues to come to light.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cwf-Rtb (Connect with fans – Reason to buy) is pure marketing genius and I have used this philosophy myself. Thank you!
The Internet has the ability to bypass the middlemen of culture as long as we don't let the copyright dogs get in the way with ridiculous, and questionable, legislation. (an unregulated 6 strikes plan anyone?)
[ 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:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2012/10/amanda-palmers-kickstarter-scandal.html
Seems a bit of the pot calling the kettle black.
[ 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:
That article (which is not the top result, BTW) is a hack piece. In fact, it doesn't appear to be anything other than Joshua Clover bitching about "the unpaid microlabor of providing content for Web sites." His version of Amanda Palmer is simply a straw man burned in effigy.
Some facts:
Amanda is not, and never was, a "folk singer." (Minor point, but still.)
The idea that Amanda left Roadrunner because "the familiar channels of label-funded 'artist development' have narrowed, and are now thick with pirates" is beyond ridiculous.
Amanda's back-up band, the Grand Theft Orchestra, was on salary, and got paid even when not on tour.
Amanda didn't "supposedly" spend the Kickstarter money on her album; she gave a very detailed account of where the money went.
Amanda asked for a couple of volunteers in each city to fill out the string and horn sections of her own back-up band. No tour commitments, no signing away any rights, just shoot an email and show up a couple hours before. She has done this, often, with her other projects, such as asking fans to show up to be crowd extras in her videos.
After the kerfuffle erupted, she emailed everyone who had until then agreed to do it, and asked if anyone would like to back out. Not a single one did.
Afterwards, she paid them anyway, out of money that would have gone into producing videos.
All of this info was available before Clover wrote the piece, but apparently he didn't care enough to do the research. Even the facts that he got right were only put there as a retraction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, that is what's going on. They're not tattoos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amanda Palmer for RIAA President
As someone who's slept on a few of the same floors she did while on tour, I can tell you there's a reason Amanda Palmer is THE modern-day hero for musicians. Social bonding has always been the purpose of music. It's always been why we play. To say music is entertainment is like saying food is deliciousness. The nourishment music gives comes from shared experience -- literally SHARING MUSIC -- and yet for the last 100 years we've minimized that decade by decade until most came to think of music as purely an entertainment product.
The purpose of music is not to make people rich. The purpose is social bonding. If you accomplish social bonding -- the purpose of music -- it's human nature to reciprocate, to acknowledge value.
This is what all the folks at Trichordist and other musicians nostalgic for pre-Napster days have sadly forgotten in their holy war to force fans to pay for access to the music they originally created hoping for wide exposure, wide social bonding. They'll hide behind "it's about the music, man" but it's not about the music for them. They're obsessed with all the money they're losing. They're looking for someone to blame -- the fan, the industry, other musicians -- but they have no one to blame but themselves. They are losing money because they no longer are making connections. They are actually being negative and trying to put people off. I know I change the channel immediately when a Cracker song comes on. Wait, I always did that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amanda Palmer for RIAA President
"Information wants to be free. Information also wants to be expensive. Information wants to be free because it has become so cheap to distribute, copy, and recombine - too cheap to meter. It wants to be expensive because it can be immeasurably valuable to the recipient. That tension will not go away. It leads to endless wrenching debate about price, copyright, 'intellectual property', the moral rightness of casual distribution, because each round of new devices makes the tension worse, not better." - Stewart Brand, 1984
"There's no one in the record company that's a technologist," Morris explains. "That's a misconception writers make all the time, that the record industry missed this. They didn't. They just didn't know what to do. It's like if you were suddenly asked to operate on your dog to remove his kidney. What would you do?"
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." - Doug Morris, 21st Century
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Amanda Palmer for RIAA President
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amanda Palmer for RIAA President
(1) There is no basis to say how much her music is worth. Kickstarter sort of said it was worth over $1 million. More power to her, but really?
(2) What if she just took the money and ran away? Actually, I'm sure that happens pretty often, but I'm even more sure that Kickstarter doesn't talk about those cases on their website.
I think there should be some control over the project. To make it concrete, the people proposing a project should say how much it will cost to do what they propose and how much they want to receive in exchange for doing it. I think the parent organization should even provide help in such things as describing projects in a meaningful way, helping them with the budgeting, and providing evaluation criteria to say whether or not a project was successful. It shouldn't be like a gold mine where people are trying to strike it rich, but if the project does succeed, then they can submit another project, hopefully a more ambitious one.
I actually visualize it as a kind of 'charity brokerage'. Near as I can tell, Kickstarter basically runs a website, but the brokerage would support project management and have a vested interest in helping the projects succeed. My longest description is called 'reverse auction charity shares', for what little that is worth. The idea actually goes back before I ever heard of Kickstarter, IndyGogo or CrowdRise. (I bet there are others by now...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Amanda Palmer for RIAA President
And I think that's why Palmer ran into some criticism with her Kickstarter project. Since she raised so much money, but then said she still didn't have enough to pay cash for the extra musicians at each stop, there seemed to be some lack of transparency. (She did end up paying them after she got some bad PR for not doing so.)
People contributing to Kickstarter projects often like to think they are making the project happen, not just that they are buying something. And as they become mentally (and perhaps financially) invested in those projects, they may come to see themselves as something more than fans. They are now part of the project and want to know all the details.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer for RIAA President
The main difference is that this is a way that would allow small donors to have some influence and control over the charitable projects. As it stands now, small donors are mostly ignored and have no real idea how their money is spent, whereas large donors get to call the shots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer for RIAA President
Unfortunately, most of the Kickstarters I've seen locally are for projects that are going to happen regardless, which makes you wonder why they need the money if they're going to go through with it one way or the other.
Also big donors aren't going to call the shots. The donors don't influence the project except whether it happens or not. And if you've got a lot of money and want to call the shots, you just make a deal with the artist. You don't need Kickstarter for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amanda Palmer haters
http://www.reddit.com/r/WeAreTheMusicMakers/comments/19iuem/amanda_palmers_ted_talk_not_a bout_making_your/
Make sure to read the correction at the end of the New Yorker piece -- Palmer actually DID pay the backing musicians, even though they volunteered for free without coercion. She directly responded to the criticism transparently.
As if a bad decision she made regarding paying backing musicians completely invalidates the fact she was able to take the same 25,000 fans that were worthless to the record label and turn it into $1.2M to fund HER DREAM!
I know dozens of musicians who would jump at the chance to tour for free as Amanda Palmer's backing band. Why? Because the value is in the network they create on tour, not the money they get paid on tour which after buses, catering etc. usually leaves a band in the hole or break even. It's their decision to make, whether you think it's a bad one or not. Duh, look at the $1.2M on Kickstarter. She got that from touring and connecting with people in meatspace AND online. The backing musicians know if they come into every market in the nation as part of Palmer's pack, some of that perceived value is going to rub off on them.
Again, as if a bad decision on paying background singers somehow invalidates what is fast becoming THE template for future success in the music businesses?
What happens when someone who DOES pay their background singers makes a quarter mil on a 100K campaign? Oh yeah
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1268472090/brand-new-mindless-self-indulgence-record
I'm convinced failed musicians and label execs troll the comments here on their lunch breaks. Are your souls so crushed you've been reduced to a Tourettes-like stream of puerile whining?
The only thing it's changed for me, as I'm sure many in Techdirt community already knew, is to quickly skip over all anonymous comments. It's like an echo chamber for logical fallacies and banality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amanda Palmer haters
So don't be surprised when those that work in music and have to suffer through idiotic statements about the music business made by those that don't know what they're talking about respond in kind.
Amanda Palmer isn't saying anything new. About music or even life. Good customer service is an age old concept.
Musicians have to eat and pay rent. If they're not compensated for their work, they'll have to work on something else. That doesn't equal more music right there. This stuff isn't hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
True. But remember, the two equally important goals driving copyright policy are 1) maximize the number of works created and published; 2) minimize all restrictions suffered by the public with regard to published works as broadly and immediately as possible.
If we compensate musicians in order to get more music, we receive a benefit from the music, and suffer a harm from having to pay for it. Therefore, we seek to suffer the least harm in exchange for the most benefit (remember, this isn't a balance between the interests of the musician and the public, it is a balance between two public interests). This means that there is necessarily some point at which the cost of compensating someone for a work outweighs the benefit in having the work exist! That is, some works come at too high a price.
So while we would all prefer it if literally everyone who wanted to create and publish music did to the fullest extent they liked, due to the cost we are sadly all better off if some of these would-be musicians did something else instead.
This brings us to the big question: are we currently short of the optimal point and should increase compensation, are we currently at the optimal point and should make no changes, or are we currently beyond the optimal point and should reduce compensation?
This stuff is hard, but that's what happens when you look at the big picture, instead of only a small part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
And, yet, oddly, you DO post in our forums telling people that you know how online advertising works, and when we proved you wrong, you threw a hissy fit. Funny, that.
Amanda Palmer isn't saying anything new. About music or even life. Good customer service is an age old concept.
You're also the same person who called her "marginal talent" above.
So, if she's a marginal talent, and she's not doing anything new, other than "good customer service," what does that say about you? If such a "marginal talent" can build such a loving and supporting fan base through "good customer service" then a brilliant musical genius, such as yourself, surely can do better. And yet, instead of being on the stage at TED or get $1.2 million from your fans on Kickstarter, you're here in our comments bitching about how some site in Russia that probably makes $200 a month is "stealing" from you.
Maybe, just maybe, if you tried some of that "customer service" your fans would actually support you. That is, if you're at least a "marginal talent."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
You just can't stop being your own worst enemy, can you, Masnick?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
Identifying you isn't hard. Your version of writing your signature is acting like a completely stuck-up jackass who licks the soles of Lowery's boots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
I'd be careful, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
Of course, your constant screams of "die in a fire" somehow don't merit any concern. Funny standards, that. Or maybe you're just a fucking cuntbucket with a pile of horseshit where a functioning brain would have been.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
But, of course, the really funny thing is I proved that you're a total hypocrite, and you didn't respond to any of the points raised.
Gee, I wonder why...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
Did you write the post threatening me, hmm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
I raised a few points that I'm still waiting for you to respond to:
* If she's mediocre and of no great talent, why is she doing better than you?
* If what she's doing is nothing new other than good customer service, what does that say about how you treat your fans?
* If she's so successful engaging with her fans, why do you spend so much time threatening everyone?
Did you write the post threatening me, hmm?
No. I agree that was way beyond the pale of acceptable activity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
And yet you say and do nothing about it. You set the tone around here, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
You started the angry mob, and you will have to deal with it alone.
Mike can't control anybody, nor do you and if you believe otherwise you are an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
Mike can act like a leader and set the tone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
I said that I thought it was inappropriate. Just as I thought it was inappropriate when you told me that you wished me dead, or when you talked about how happy you'd be when I got cancer and died (which you insisted was coming soon), or any of the many other times you've talked about my untimely death giving you joy.
What would you suggest I do: ban you? delete your comments?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
I never said that, Mike. You're delusional as per usual. Watching you make this stuff up is priceless.
What would you suggest I do: ban you? delete your comments?
I expect you to act like a leader. I know you don't understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
May we quote you on that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
Ha! No, watching you deny what you absolutely said is priceless. Perhaps you were having one of your "episodes" where you puke all over our comments.
I expect you to act like a leader. I know you don't understand.
Sometimes the role of a leader is to call out someone's bullshit. And, it seems to be working when I call out your bullshit, you go fucking apeshit, and the only support you get is from the Trichordist clique.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
Where's the link, Mike? Where did I discuss "how happy [I'd] be when [you] got cancer and died (which [I]insisted was coming soon)"? Please provide the link or admit that you're lying.
Sometimes the role of a leader is to call out someone's bullshit. And, it seems to be working when I call out your bullshit, you go fucking apeshit, and the only support you get is from the Trichordist clique.
ROFLMAO! Nobody runs from a substantive discussion faster than you. Want to prove me wrong? Then actually debate me. I want a debate where you answer direct questions with direct answers and where you don't run away and avoid the embarrassment of looking like a fool. You name the time and place, and I will be there. All you ever do is spout weasel words and run away. Prove me wrong. I fucking dare you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
Would be easier if you actually logged into an account, instead of having to waste time hunting through hundreds of thousands of anonymous comments, you know.
Thankfully, a few choice words from your usual selection makes this easy:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120628/00065919518/yet-another-yes-another-error-megaupl oad-case-search-warrants-ruled-illegal.shtml?threaded=true#c132
ROFLMAO! Nobody runs from a substantive discussion faster than you. Want to prove me wrong?
I have proved you wrong. I've engaged with you multiple times. And we get this:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/01171420087/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week -techdirt.shtml#c1210
I am happy to debate adults. Examples:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130130/23085521833/former-riaa-vp-named-2nd-command- copyright-office.shtml (comments in which I hold a substantive debate with a critic)
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120626/01023119476/innovation-copying-civil-disobedience .shtml (video in which I hold a substantive debate with a critic)
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120210/02273417726/how-being-more-open- human-awesome-can-save-anyone-worried-about-making-money-entertainment.shtml (video in which I hold a substantive debate with a critic)
So, again, I have shown time and time again that this is not a problem and I have no fear having such a debate -- though usually they are with people who actually have shown that they are respectable individuals with some history -- i.e., someone who actually worked on SOPA, the main lobbyist behind SOPA, and a long term industry insider who is a professor.
Who are you? A nobody with a temper tantrum problem. When you show that you deserve respect, maybe you'll finally get some.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
Thankfully, a few choice words from your usual selection makes this easy:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120628/00065919518/yet-another-yes-another-error-megaupl oad-case-search-warrants-ruled-illegal.shtml?threaded=true#c132
That link isn't me. If it were, I would gladly admit it. But it's not. You might want to double-check the IP address, Mike. I did make other posts in that thread, but that one is not me.
So, again, I have shown time and time again that this is not a problem and I have no fear having such a debate -- though usually they are with people who actually have shown that they are respectable individuals with some history -- i.e., someone who actually worked on SOPA, the main lobbyist behind SOPA, and a long term industry insider who is a professor.
Who are you? A nobody with a temper tantrum problem. When you show that you deserve respect, maybe you'll finally get some.
Excuses, excuses, excuses. Such a coward. Such a fake. Cluck, cluck, bawk, Chicken Man. I don't blame you for being scared. You do look like such a fool whenever you do try to give it a go. And then you run away. Every time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
If this is your attempt to act more like an adult, suffice it to say, you have gone in the other direction.
Again, I have tried to engage with you multiple times, and we saw where it led. You acting like a demented two year old the second you got tripped up.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/01171420087/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-t echdirt.shtml#c1210
We can keep repeating this all day long. I am not afraid of "debating" anyone. The problem is that, as you can see above, YOU have no interest in debate.
Wish it were different as a serious debate is quite enjoyable. It's just you've proven incapable of carrying it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
Want to prove me wrong? Have a debate with me. You pick the topic. You get all your friends to pile in against me. You name the place. You name the time. I will be there. I will answer your questions directly and without any equivocation. You do the same.
I FUCKING DARE YOU, CHICKEN MIKE. Bawk, bawk, bawk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
So far, you're highly ineffective, as Mike answers your questions but you still act like a child saying he didn't. You don't even argue, you just contradict.
Then you engage in name calling, as a pathetic attempt to engage Mike. However, you really only end up looking like a complete fool. There's no point in debating with you, you'll just try to drag people down to your level of stupidity and beat them with experience. That's all you have accomplished thusfar.
We don't need to pile against you, you can't debate anyone, not even Mike. Do you know what a debate is? It certainly is not what you've been doing.
What you're actually doing is harassing Mike. Luckily for you, Mike supports freedom of speech and is mature enough to limit his engagements with you to a reasonable amount. That's never enough for you though, as you ignore all he has said and just repeated attack and maintain a state of denial.
Mike has already debated with you, way more than he should have.
If he bothers to respond to your laste two comments (#113 and #114) then you will have won, you will have proven you can drag him down to your childish level and beat him with experience at being an idiot!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
He has said absolutely nothing of substance in this entire thread. He is not here to engage in conversation, just to derail it.don't let him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
Oh look, here's Mike and I having a nice conversation just last week: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130227/03004022130/doj-lets-channelsurfing-operator-mostly-off-ho ok.shtml
Weird. He's able to engage me there despite his claim here that I'm not worth engaging. I think his claims there a little far-fetched since McCarthy's site was literally one page with a few dozen links on it. That can't cost nearly as much as Mike's complicated site. But it shows that when Mike wants to, he's more than willing to engage me. And I'm quite the friendly one back. That was nice. I enjoyed it. Learned a thing or two from Mike.
Here's another one from a few days earlier: www.techdirt.com/articles/20130220/16200522042/arguing-that-copyright-first-amendment-coexisted-200- years-is-to-ignore-reality.shtml
In that one, Mike ran away from the debate. His arguments there are quite silly (he thinks that some book that makes normative arguments about how the law should work are in fact reality while he ignores the actual law because he doesn't like it). Every time he pulls out that "No Law" book he gets taken to task and runs away. It's amazing how he points at fiction and then claims that anyone who disagrees "ignores reality." He'll never admit that he's the one "ignoring reality," of course. Mike lives in a fantasy world.
Anyway, he and I engage frequently. He only pulls out all the excuses like this when he's tired of me making him look bad. He'll just keep making excuse after excuse about how I'm not worth talking to. And then he'll talk to me, in depth at times, at least until I start making him look bad again. Rinse and repeat. The constant throughout is that I'm here ready to engage him substantively on the merits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
A little self-important paranoia there? I guess the obviously sarcastic dig at your regular shtick about IP address spying just went straight over your head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
http://musictechpolicy.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/shocker-ad-networks-profit-from-piracy/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
Isn't that amazing, same group of people running multiple sites and linking to the same group of sites as "support" for their "data."
Sorry, that's nothing but a bunch of out-of-context quotes intended to spread misinformation. Very similar to the tactics used by CIA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
*sigh* Once again, this is what happens when you have people who have no clue about the industry pretending they do. Again, in this very thread you insist that you don't have discussions on industries you don't understand, and yet you are doing that here.
What Chris doesn't understand is that the guy never says that those ads make money for the PIRATE sites. What he said is that big companies having ads on *remnant networks* makes *THE ADVERTISERS* money. No one is looking at the tiny percentage of "pirate" sites and realizing anything. Those ads show up because the remnant networks are using real-time buying systems to match up visitors with ads. That's it. It's got fuck all to do with piracy, and the sites themselves are making maybe a penny per thousand views.
You REALLY should not comment on stuff you don't know about. It makes you look incredibly uninformed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
For one thing, that has nothing to do with Amanda's TED talk. So, you're just being an idiotic troll.
Now, to feed you...
That site is run by Chris Castle. He's an entertainment industry lawyer, meaning he has a vested economic interest in claiming "piracy," especially against those with deep pockets.
That doesn't make his arguments wrong, but nowhere in that article does he say anything that approaches a substantive argument. It's just a few cherry-picked quotes, interspersed with a lot of snark. That in itself isn't bad, if there was anything to back up that snark - but there isn't. No data, no studies, no arguments about why the quotes are wrong. All interspersed with appeals to emotion (calling infringement "theft"), ad hominem attacks ("The usual Big Tech standard," "Google Shill Listers"), and so forth.
Even the "facts" he casually spits out are wrong. Example: "according to the Megavideo indictment, Kim Dotcom made his substantial millions in part from selling his advertising inventory through which ad networks? Google Adsense and Adbright." In fact, one of the key arguments in the government's claim that Mega is a pirate site, is the fact that Google cut off their ad funding in 2007, less than two years after Megaupload was even founded, and years before the investigation even began. After that, Megaupload ran its own internal ad network (MegaClick).
Put it all together, and you have a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Truly a tale told by an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
Grrr!!!!!!!! Get that anger out, Mike!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
Or who seems angrier? The guy who mocks her talent (your buddy in these comments) and who insists that she's not doing anything new (same guy) or the person who points out that maybe, rather than being angry about it, he might learn something?
No anger from me. I think anyone reading these comments sees the two of you as incredibly childish and jealous, though. So feel free to keep up your antics and confirm their opinion.
Out of curiosity, do you always mock people more successful than you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
See, fits you perfectly!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
As a source of information, it barely even passes the laugh test.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
Flagging as "stupid retard wrote here" does NOT block anyone from viewing the content of said post.
Very few comment-permitted sites do such things, most block or monitor and remove disagreeable/offensive content.
In fact, reported and shrunk posts are actually attractive, because other readers expand them to see what was reported.
Sometimes it is abused, yes, but most of the time, no, it is appropriate as some idiot is just repeating the same trash: ad-hominem attacks, strawman fallacies, appeal to authority fallacies, or just outlandish nonsense.
It's simply a means of saying "this content is not productive, read at your own risk." Which is technically a form of censorship, but NO ONE IS DEPRIVED Of the right to read that crap!
It's simply an attempt to keep people from derailing threads, but obviously it doesn't work that well given all the bullshit that happens (mostly directed at Mike of course).
And it is just bullshit! Nothing but bullshit attacks.
Disagreements that are intelligent are met accordingly.
Douchebaggery is met with the same in response.
AGAIN, the tone is set by the poster, NOT the article! This is a happy article, yet we have assholish posting from certain people, which almost demands assholish responses. The fact that so many here do bite their tongue is amazing, considering the crap that is launched around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
From your comments, you suggested that you judged the quality and value of the discussion based on something you found silly about her appearance. That suggests you are not a particularly intelligent person, nor one worth taking seriously.
It is also a common trait we have seen in the copyright maximalists on this site. For all their talk about the importance of "respect" they appear to have no respect at all for so many artists.
The angry one is you, lashing out at the AC, suggesting that he doesn't have even marginal talent based on some criteria you made up ad hoc.
I believe you read that entirely incorrectly. I did not suggest he was a marginal talent, at all. He was the one who stated that Palmer was the marginal talent. I merely pointed out that if this was true, then what did it say about his situation. I have no idea if he is talented or not. I'm just pointing out that if a "marginal talent" can succeed, then surely someone of his own great talent should be able to do the same, and not bitch and whine on my blog all day. And yet...
Your whole blog reads like the diary of a man who's pissed off at the world.
I have almost no anger towards anyone. Once again, it appears that you have a strawman Mike built up in your mind, and you wish to impose that person on me. I would suggest that you stop making assumptions, for they make you look like you have rather poor skills in reading a person.
I regularly celebrate all that is wonderful and exciting in the world. I get frustrated by those who seek to block such things, but I have no *anger* towards anyone.
Saying a couple positive things here and there doesn't take away from the fact that you more often than not are lashing out at the world, telling us all how smart you are and how you'd do everything better than the person you're ragging on.
Hmm. Again, you misread quite a lot. I don't think I'm any smarter than the next guy. I do think I have some experience and knowledge about economics and business models that I try to share with the world for the sake of discussion. I often learn from people in the comments and that improves my thinking on these subjects.
And when someone dares challenge you on the merits, you lash out in anger and then run away before you concede an inch. It's amazing fun for me to watch.
I regularly am corrected and learn in the comments.
I will note, of course, that this is entirely different from your MO, which is on display here:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/01171420087/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week -techdirt.shtml#c1210
I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to read through your comments and mine and determine who is the "angry" one here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
...Oh, right, nothing.
"Substantive discussion" indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
Thanks, but what "substantive discussion" are you attempting to have on the "merits" of Amanda's TED talk?
None whatsoever. Throughout this thread, you've done nothing but call Mike names.
If you want to have a discussion on the substance of Amanda's TED talk, then let's have it. Otherwise, you're just a troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
Not true. As you well know, I am happy to have substantive discussions with most people. It's folks, like yourself, who have proven over and over again to not have any interest, whatsoever, in having a real substantive discussion that we've learned it's not worth bothering with. I've tried, over and over and over again, and in response, you've proven yourself to be an outright liar:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121121/23215021120/copyright-maximalists-attempt-to-down play-significance-rsc-report-chanting-their-mantra-copyright-is-property.shtml#c2773
As well as a destructive vandal:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/01171420087/funniestmost-insightful-comments-we ek-techdirt.shtml#c1210
That is not someone whom you have a substantive conversation with.
However, for people who DO NOT act like a two year old, I have substantive discussions all the time. Take, for example, this thread:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130130/23085521833/former-riaa-vp-named-2nd-command-co pyright-office.shtml
I'm pretty sure you pop up in their sniping like a child again, while the rest of us adults are having a series discussion.
Once again, if you didn't act like a child, perhaps people wouldn't treat you like one. Until then...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
Want to prove that you can best me? Then prove it. You name the time and place. Get all of your followers and sockpuppets to gang up on me. I don't care. I will be there. Why are you too scared to have a substantive discussion, Mike? Chicken? I fucking dare you to engage me in a discussion where you answer direct questions directly and where you don't run away. Stop running away. Stop making excuses. Be a man and have an actual debate with me. I won't hold my breath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
You are either a troll kid or you are very mad.
Please continue posting your bullshit. It is laughable to read them all and see the other posters thrashing you down like the dumb kid you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
I agree.
Good customer service is NOT the following non-exhaustive list:
- Insisting that all your customers are thieves, and demanding that everyone pays a blank media tax.
- Demand corporate-sized penalties for non-commercial, alleged infringement.
- Use unverified investigative technology to arrive at the above conclusions.
- Insist on plowing through despite clearly being incorrect, in cases such as Gertrude Walton and Tanya Andersen.
- Threaten to influence whatever politicians that the public is dealt with by withdrawing monetary support.
- Exploit artists, then insist that the artists are all being idiots.
- Make a fuckton of money to pay Chris Dodd and Mitch Bainwol with then insist that the industry - from which money was accumulated to pay the aforementioned - is dying, as it has been since "Home Taping is Killing Music".
The copyright maximalists insist that laws are the result of pirates abusing their privileges. The same can be said of the RIAA's own attempts, as well as those of their clones all over the globe. They lost the war the instant they began suing children. Years of making money and they still insist that they're dying and broken. Fewer people are willing to listen to their bullshit because everybody knows exactly what it is.
This stuff isn't hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
Except with the big labels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amanda Palmer haters
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1268472090/brand-new-mindless-self-indulgence-record
"
Is that as random and pointless a plug as possible? You just said she paid her background singers and then throw in a supposedly counter example of a group that pays their background singers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Working for free
While a few people in the world have become increasingly wealthy, lots of other people are barely getting by and they are asking if maybe it's time to find alternatives. Here are two very recent articles.
For 20-Somethings, Ambition at a Cost - NYTimes.com: "Ms. McIntyre is just one 20-something — a population historically exploitable as cheap labor — learning that long hours and low pay go hand in hand in the creative class. The recession has been no friend to entry-level positions, where hundreds of applicants vie for unpaid internships at which they are expected to be on call with iPhone in hand, tweeting for and representing their company at all hours."
Nations Must Prepare For Robots Destroying The Low-Skill Job Market - Business Insider: "... modern economies continue to use wages as the primary means by which purchasing power is distributed. Really fast productivity growth might lead to tumbling costs for many different kinds of consumer goods, information, and possibly even health care. But people will still need incomes. Households will still need food and a roof over their heads, and society might even decide that they deserve more than that: that relative penury for huge segments of the population is bad for social stability, or even unjust."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Working for free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Working for free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Working for free
Did you read the article? These are people working in jobs where they are working for free in hopes of getting money eventually. However, in most cases that won't happen. Their employers know they can get them to work for free or little money and some of these young adults end up doing it for years, but the better jobs never happen.
There's really nothing to do with minimum wage. The competition for the jobs is so high that it drives done the need to pay them anything.
But eventually, when you have enough people working for free, they don't spend money and the industries they might have supported no longer have customers that can spend money. I think we are headed that way with a lot of spending. The money that is available will go for the necessities and the other spending will decline.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Working for free
That's the trend I am watching. There is an excess of workers for many jobs and employers don't need to pay much to get people to work for them. However, that puts less money in people's pockets.
On the upside, though, is that as spending goes down, consumption also goes down which is better for the environment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Working for free
Corporate Profits Soar as Worker Income Limps - NYTimes.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most bands make their rent by touring and the copyright to their work? Was, permanently, lost long ago to some clever big label media salesperson with a contract 12 pages thick with fine print and signed while drunk after a great concert.
A hastily signed big label media contract might also be like making a creative content slave of oneself (A band could always break up still allowing each musician a musical life unless, of course, they all sighed the contract... hehehe) by contractual stupidity. Talk about classic copyright abuse!
Any new artist should consider a 'creative commons' license of which there are several flavors: http://creativecommons.org/
If we can limit the terms of copyright, to much less that the lives of the audience say 15-30 years or so, we put a cork on the many life crippling abuses of present copyright practice. Better yet kick the entire copyright amendment out and enact a new 'Right of Creative Origin' amendment. (or whatever) A term limitation (15-30y) would also benefit the artist who could reinterpret their original work, picking up where they left off some, years down the road.
The present copyright law of 70y from the demise of the artist only celebrates the death of great artists. By dying the 70y clock countdown to public domain starts ticking. (macabre thinking for sure but who allowed that kind of law anyway?) It was in fact BAD that Tolkien died but its good that his work (under the ridiculous present copyright law) will enter the public domain sooner. (cripes! I really do hate that kind of analysis)
When the public domain increases we all benefit. Our shared culture and thus common public awareness benefits. No one looses except eternal copyright dogs. The damage, without regard of the consequence, to a free society and the possibilities of shared culture is without measure and... certifiably insane.
Amanda Palmer for RIAA President...? Yey!
It is impossible to describe the insightfullness of several of the comments I've read in this topic so far. Thanks. (Some were anonymous too.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only a few posts above I explained how ridiculous it is when people that don't work in music try to opine on subjects they know nothing about.
You should read that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Trash my logic. Whip my inattention of, typical, artists reality. (of anything really) Crush my (admittedly) lame written essay. But. Please (please) elaborate. (otherwise its hard to reciprocate)
The anonymous coward post above was very inspiring. (with great quotes) Was that you? Keep at it. Impossible to reply with only unspecific dissatisfaction.
My consistent theme has be for the total abolishment of the copyright amendment and replacing it with a new OriginalRights (call it what you want) amendment that expands fair use, constrains what can be copyrighted, along with temporal (time) limits to less than the lives of their audience (15-30 years) so that we can achieve 'cultural atomic mass'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A baseless comment illustrating you are exactly what you claim TD commentators to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh the irony of this statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
AFAIK, you are just a dumb kid trying to look tall here (And let me add, FAILING MISERABLY at that).
Big labels are money whores. Nothing else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So here's a question
It's sometimes said that the film industry is following behind the music industry. But do you think this strategy would work for filmmakers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So here's a question
What Palmer does isn't really easily duplicated. She seems to have an unusual amount of energy, plus she seems to genuinely like to talk to and hang out both with her fans and people who could become fans. She's upbeat and is an endless source of creative ideas and experiments.
What Palmer is "selling" isn't so much her art as her friendship, her conversation, her events, and so on. As she says in the video, what people get from her are smiles, recognition, eye contact, etc. She's like that superfun person from high school that lots of people want to hang out with.
You can't just put your work up online and send out some tweets and hope to connect with people the way she does. She has real conversations all the time. Most artists would find that both exhausting and a distraction from their "creative work."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So here's a question
I think too many people have been blinded by all the flash associated with the public image of famous artists. An artist does not actually need to be as active as Amanda Palmer in order to make a living. Many great artists are happy to make a moderate living dealing with a relatively small fan base.
I recently discovered a terrific artist who uses the kickstarter platform to cover her production costs, and then makes her living selling her work at conventions. Even if her artwork wasn't really great I would still back her simply because I think she has a great attitude. Another example is a neighbour I had some years ago who was a decent musician and a good songwriter. He worked days as a mailman, and sang at the local pubs a couple times a week. My wife and I really liked his music and asked him why he didn't do more. It turned out he was quite happy to only sing part time. He had had a band when he was younger, and had gone on tours and built up his fan base, even recording a few albums. But he found it more work then it was worth. All he wanted was to make a comfortable living and enjoy making music on his own terms. Andre Rieu is another example of a musician who has interests outside of getting rich. His success is built on getting the music to his audience rather then maximizing his profits.
No, you can't just post a few tweets and expect the world to beat a path to your door, but no worthwhile artist would. A good artist is passionate about their art and has already been building a fan base for nearly as long as they have been creating said art. They are usually just afraid to approach those fans because it could be seen as demeaning. It's time we (the general public) stopped kneeling before the mighty labels and started respecting these artists instead of telling them to stick it in the closet and go get a job (figuratively or literally).
Hmm, that's a bit more rambling then I intended. Oh well, bite me, it's my opinion and I have a right to speak it. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So here's a question
Many singer/songwriters understand the concept of a tip jar and will put it out at shows if that's going to be their primary way to get paid. But, unlike some online forms of payment, a tip jar is a personal interaction. The tipper puts the money in a jar, the artist sees it, and there is acknowledgement on both sides. It's much less likely to happen online. Dropping money in an online tip jar doesn't give the tipper the very visible interaction that happens in person, especially when his friends at a show with him can see him tip. (I've been at shows where a slightly drunk fan will give the singer $50 to sing happy birthday to someone.) It's theater, and Palmer understands theater very well.
I am specifically addressing what Palmer says she does. When she stays at a fan's house or gets a ride from a fan or someone brings equipment to a show, there is a face-to-face exchange. That's what I am trying to say. Unless you, the artist, are up for that kind of interaction with your fans, it is hard to get the same kinds of results that Palmer is able to get.
I've been to art openings where the artist is there schmoozing the rich patrons because that approach helps to sell $10,000 artwork. But musicians as a group don't tend to come from a schmooze-your-patrons culture. I don't think the problem is that they won't ask. It's that they don't want to put in the time it takes to get the results.
Palmer gives herself to her fans. Not every artist is willing to do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So here's a question
This is a key point, I think. The best path to success is to identify what it is that you can provide that is unique, and to provide it at a fair price ("price" in the larger sense, not as a synonym for "money".)
Palmer does this. So should everyone else, whether they're artists or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So here's a question
Palmer does this. So should everyone else, whether they're artists or not.
Yes, I agree.
What's important to understand about Palmer is that what she offers is only somewhat related to music. I view her as a performance artist, a party/event organizer, and (this is in no way a criticism) a paid friend.
I think Palmer contributes a lot to the conversation because she says insightful things about being an artist and getting paid as an artist.
She's far more open than most, and when it comes to money, she's exceptionally open compared to most artists/musicians.
She does get criticized on her blog for some of what she does, but that's because often she takes risks and those risks generate feedback.
Now, as I have said, I'd like to push the envelope further and see all businesses experiment with the Palmer model. Make everything you do available for free. Ask for payment if you like, but accept it when you don't get it.
Can you imagine a company like Google not pressuring its customers to pay up? Can you imagine the health care system not pressuring anyone to pay up? Can you imagine the energy industry not pressuring anyone to pay up?
Think about how profoundly different the world economy would be if everyone used Palmer's approach? Maybe it shouldn't just be for artists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So here's a question
Imagine a world where no one has to pay for anything. The system is set up so people "can" pay if it suits them, but they don't have to pay. Goods and services are out there to be used/taken/shared and no one will send anyone after them if they use those goods/services without payment.
I'm not just talking about digital content. I am talking about everything.
Imagine such a system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem with fandom
What I see happening as a result of technology is that the tools are allowing more people to do things for themselves that they couldn't have done in the past. There's a democratization of creation going on. That means people are less dependent on others to create for them. They have been given the tools to do it themselves. It has changed the music industry and opened up the door for far more people to make music. They don't need years of training. They don't need to have exceptional talent (because they tools will cover for them). They don't need to be in awe of others who create music because the process has become far more accessible to them.
So the business model of the artist and his/her fans doesn't seem so secure to me. It implies people will pay for the privilege to be fans, but I'm not sure how long that attitude will continue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem with fandom
The artist has always relied on their fans, as paying for art is discretionary. Some artists can manage the relationship for themselves, and some cannot. Those artists that can do this for themselves are able to make a living with far fewer fans than those who rely on a label or other publisher. For many artists, a publisher, if they can find one, takes most of their potential income, and so being published does not eliminate the day job or poverty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The problem with fandom
Quite a long time ago, the artist was just a person who lived in the community. The people who got the special attention were the religious leaders and the royalty/tribal leaders.
Artists as a special class, distinct from their fans, is a relatively recent development. And technology is allowing people to revert back to the days where art is democratized.
It's easier to see the progression with photography than with music. When photography first came out, very few people took photos. Now nearly everyone has a quality camera on them at all times in their smart phones. As a result everyone takes photos, shares photos, and publishes photos. The need to pay high priced photographers has gone down because the average person can often capture a photo worthy of display in a major publication. People still might hire a photographer for a wedding, but overall photography is a art that nearly everyone does now, and in many cases does well.
If you couple improved technology with an expanded sense of community, you get a situation where there might be more focus on sharing art rather than a wall between artist and fan where fans pay artists in direct transactions. Everyone becomes an artist him or herself rather than a fan of artists. You have a community of artists rather than a community of fans around an artist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fan-dom is Not Necessarily a Matter of Art (to: Suzanne Lainson, #55).
I don't know if you are familiar with the photograph, The Brownie Girl. This is a fundamentally different kind of picture, one taken by intent rather than by chance. It seems to have turned up about 1900, and the best evidence is that a commercial laboratory technician pirated a copy from some film he was processing. The picture shows a little girl, of perhaps seven or so, dressed in a tweed suit and picture hat, at the beach, pointing a Kodak "brownie" camera at the photographer, and charmingly giggling. Of course, this represented a certain level of technological progress. You can't record a giggle with a shutter slower than 1/64 sec. or so. Presumably, the photographer was "daddy," though of course there is not evidence. The picture's element of playfulness, which raises it to the level of a significant work of art, is not about technique, so much as it is about the absence of a stranger.
I believe that the first female stage performer to have fans in the sense that Amanda Palmer, or Lady Gaga, or Lilly Allen have fans, was the ballerina Fanny Elssler (1810-1884). I mean that she had fans in the sense that energetic young middle-class men were willing to devote their energy to having sexual fantasies about a woman whom they had literally zero chance of actually sleeping with, or having a date with, or a long conversation with, or anything like that. They were willing to treat her like a queen, as a kind of avatar of the goddess Diana, or something like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanny_Elssler
Here is an example of the kind of thing which happened when Fanny Elssler went on tour:
http://archive.mdhs.org/library/Image21.html
It was much more normal at the time for young men to devote their capacity for fan-dom to a political objective, for example, worship of someone like the Marquis de Lafayette or Giuseppe Garibaldi or Daniel O'Connell (the radical Irish politician), or Feargus O'Connor ( the "chartist" leader), or Lord Byron, going off to fight for Greek independence, or the historian Jules Michelet (*), that is to say, a politician who had placed himself at the head of a democratic or nationalist movement. We are speaking, of course, of young men who, if they were not actually at school, under the immediate supervision of prefects and proctors, were nonetheless on a fairly short financial leash, one way or another. In our own terms, if you live in a college dormitory, and you wait for hours to get a glimpse of Richard M. Stallman during one of his visitations, that is what this kind of fan-dom was like.
In most areas, such young men were given enough money to visit a brothel at reasonable intervals. Old men, in control of young men, were not unrealistic, and handed over a coin every now and then. What was novel about Fanny Elssler was that she did not fit neatly into the conventional Madonna-whore dichotomy.
(*) Michelet's public lectures at the College de France kept the French government in a chronic state of alarm, because he attracted large numbers of young men of military age, who hung around for hours before and after the lectures, and who might suddenly decide to do something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feargus_O'Connor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_G aribaldi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/zacshaw/dead-unicorn-pandemic-lp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meanwhile, there is this paid douche messing with us, all of us. Please stop it MM, moderate it. Thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There once was an average joe
Who worked as an average ho
He danced on Chris Dodd
Kissed down his Chris bod
And gave him an average blow
Classic antidirt. Don't come back!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]