This sounds like something that is fun for Palmer fans.
Serving as a showcase for musicians who want to impress the audience and industry types, not so much.
As I have maintained all along, Palmer was just doing what she has always done and it has worked for her in the past. And I think audience participation is a good thing. The more people you can get involved, the better.
I like Palmer's approach to art a lot. Occasionally she does something that ticks off some folks, and she writes intelligent stuff about that process. I highly recommend her blog.
But let's not muddy the waters here by suggesting that she is giving great exposure to musicians wanting to break through to a bigger audience. That's not likely the outcome of playing a few songs as a sideman on stage with her.
In fact, she'd mostly get slammed if she invited people to do this "because it's great exposure." She would know that isn't the case and most musicians would know that isn't the case.
And in hindsight, she shouldn't have said she couldn't pay people because she doesn't have the money (although in her head that might be the reason why she structured it this way).
Conversely, I think the reason she didn't promote this as a "party" opportunity is that she was planning to screen volunteers based on ability. The invitation isn't open to everyone, just those who are skilled enough to be able to sound "professional."
At any rate, I think the discussions of all of this (ie., who gets paid for what) is important.
EXPOSURE. If I see that someone who played with her has a show, I'll recognize the name, I'll equate it with someone I like, I WILL POSSIBLY GIVE THEM A CHANCE THEY DIDN'T HAVE BEFORE WHEN THEY WERE ABSOLUTELY UNKNOWN TO ME.
You know, I know a lot of musicians, have written musician bios, and have been involved with music promotion and marketing.
Playing a few songs with Palmer isn't likely to launch any careers based on audience reaction. Now, it might be possible to connect enough with Palmer herself during the rehearsals and the partying afterward that to impress her, stay in touch, and perhaps collaborate someday.
The audience isn't likely to notice who the volunteer string and horn players are (their job is NOT to upstage Palmer, but stay in the background and play), but perhaps the players can bond with Palmer and use that to their advantage someday.
"This kind of exposure, as a side-man, for only a few songs, for a relatively unknown performer, is barely a footnote on a resume. It doesn't even make for an interesting story at a cocktail party."
Yes, that's pretty much what the experienced sidemen I know would say.
The people who would jump at the chance are more likely those who learned horns or strings in school awhile ago, and maybe even still jam with friends, but never get an opportunity to play on stage.
But it also puts them in the "fan" category rather than the "professional" category. They may have the talent to be able to pull this off, but it's a treat for them because they never get to do it otherwise.
It devalues someone that can only play other people's music. ... I can't believe people aren't dying for a chance to play with her (assuming they like her music). That's free money in that you get that exposure. So many people will know you.
Aren't you contradicting yourself here? The people playing for Amanda are playing her music. So that would mean the exposure they are getting is, by your definition, not worth anything by since it is Amanda's music they are playing rather than their own.
I'll add that I think the trend will be this for creative projects: Rather than everyone getting paid for them, no one will. I think between everyone wanting to be a creator and no one having any money, we'll make art ourselves and then just give it away. I think the "artist with fans who give money" model will disappear in time. As I mentioned before, it will be the Burning Man model of creation. You create. I create. You give it away for free. I give it away for free.
Sure, there will be differences in quality, but I don't think those differences will be enough to compel people to pay more for one thing than another as overall consumption goes down and people learn to get by for less.
My primary interest in Palmer, and in Kickstarter in general, is how collaborations are/will be handled. I don't think most of you care, but for those who do, I will point you to this book.
"To understand the 'price of community' involvement we could ask a few simple questions. Would you collaborate for a for-profit company or any entity that would privatize your contributions without any reciprocity or reward? Would you contribute if in addition to receive no payment you would not be allowed any participation in the governance of the project you are volunteering for? If one participant is paid but not another, is this done using fair criteria, if at all acceptable? Answers to such question can inhibit or promote collaboration."
I don't think it's unfair for the musicians to ask for payment - she's not a starving artist.
Bingo. Palmer is no longer a starving artist, plus she's asked for money from her fans many times herself.
It's her community. Yes, she can ask them to play for free. And by the same token, now that she has some money, they can ask her for money in return. Just as she struggled and needed their money, now some of them are struggling and need her money.
Here's something from her blog from 10/13/09.
Virtual Crowdsurfing - Amanda Palmer: "please understand: i don’t preach this from a high horse, i say this so you (especially who don’t KNOW me) understand that the people i am reaching out to…these people KNOW ME.
a lot of them have MET me. a lot of them have FED me, HOUSED me, helped me carry heavy amps and gear up stairs, promoted my shows in their towns.
to this day, i rely on them for TONS of help. and this is a huge part of why i feel confident that i won’t look like too much of an asshole when i reach out to my fanbase for money.
even those who haven’t helped me directly follow the story, they see how my life functions and they offer what they can.
they’re part of this ride, part of my struggle to live this weird life with it’s many travels and ups and downs.
for the most part, they trust me. and i trust them. time and attention has made that possible."
I don't know if you have seen this yet. Straight from Kickstarter itself.
"Kickstarter Is Not a Store" - The Kickstarter Blog: "It's hard to know how many people feel like they're shopping at a store when they're backing projects on Kickstarter, but we want to make sure that it's no one."
I'm interested in hearing about the "morality." Considering Amanda Palmer has always worked this way (with volunteer musicians, etc.), does it suddenly become "immoral" at a certain dollar amount? If so, where's the cutoff?
Palmer was not wrong to ask. Involving her fans has always been part of her show. She was just doing what she has always done and it has been a lot of fun for those who participate.
What has changed is the use of Kickstarter. It expands the sense of "ownership" of this project. You'll see more discussions like this. People want to know where the money is going. And if they think it isn't being spent wisely or fairly, some of them are going to weigh in on the subject.
And that is GREAT. We need more discussions like this.
Price competition is coming everywhere. Everyone is right to say that there are lots of people who are happy to play music for free. There are lots of people willing to work on lots of stuff for little or no money. And music events will likely be free at some point, too. Communities can organize their own, put them on with volunteers, and invite the community to contribute their skills.
Here's a very long series of articles I did on the concept of gift economies. Some people have suggested that art should only be given away, never charged for. I looked into the concept to see how workable it might be. A gift economy for the arts can work if there are also changes in other aspects of the economy. And I think that is happening for a variety of reasons. The P2P Foundation is the best place I have found for discussions of all the possible options and ramifications.
I'm all for volunteerism. I think that's where all the creative fields are headed anyway. Everyone will be working for free. And there's nothing wrong with that. It will be Burning Man for everyone. No money transactions. You give. I give. You create. I create.
Fans will likely to be too broke to buy anything anyway, so we might as well plan for it accordingly. Like I said, hooray for the shareable movement.
Lady Gaga is so famous and inaccessible that the carpers just *know* they'll be blown out of the water: for every complainer there'll be literally 100 rabid fans rushing toward the stage, for whom payment is simply irrelevant. To sit and complain about payment would just get you laughed at. Lady Gaga has the upper hand and people know it.
That's the point, I'm making, though. When you have a star and her ever-eager fans willing to do anything for her, it's an unequal, icon-worshipping system. Yes, it exists, but as we give everyone the tools for self-actualization, hopefully there will be less of this and more of everyone finding their own creative abilities.
Palmer is mostly there by creating events where everyone participates. The trip-up here was the perception that she's done something great by raising so much money and that fans should volunteer their services because she's done something great. Palmer is noteworthy by breaking down walls, not by reinforcing them. So for people to complain that it is an unequal system is understandable. In other words, her followers are keeping her "pure."
I welcome the discussion as a step in the direction of more community-run events. Hooray for the shareable movement.
And they didn't, but out of the controversy we've gotten a good discussion about Kickstarter, where the money goes, what happens when someone makes way more than expected and is known for sharing with her fans, etc.
WHEN HAS ANYONE ever done such scrutiny of THEIR payouts ? ? ? are you telling me NO ONE has ever played for 'free' (as in beer) with those superstars ? ? ?
But that is the point. Palmer is willing to talk about it. That's why she is the perfect person to be in the middle of all of this. Palmer is very transparent. Sometimes some of her experiments generate controversy (her Evelyn project ticked off members of the disability community), but Palmer reads all the comments and responds and says VERY insightful stuff about being an artist.
Palmer didn't do anything wrong in inviting people to participate for hugs and beer. But it triggered a discussion that is very relevant. That in itself was useful. And then Palmer agreed to pay everyone. Which wasn't a concession so much as proof that she's been listening.
Palmer is a lot farther ahead in her thoughts than many of the people defending her. Let her change the system. Don't hold her back with justifications that are last year's news.
I won't keep making my point because it's getting lost on a lot of people.
But the relationship between art creator and art consumer is disappearing. Palmer has always sensed that because she does include people in her efforts. In the past there hasn't been enough to pay everyone. But now that she has the money, the crowd says, "Share it."
There's a revolution in process, but those who have a vested interest in maintaining what we have don't yet see it. Power to the people who are no longer "fans" but full-fledged creators themselves. The difference between paid artists and unpaid artists will disappear except for those few who are still being marketed under the old system.
Here are a couple of thoughts I've written lately:
__________
Here are some other ways to look at this.
Let's say I am a musician and I am having a party at my house. I invite other musicians over and tell them to bring instruments if they want. It's a jam session. Lots of fun; no one gets paid.
Let's say I have a performance and invite some musicians to come play. The band and I will get paid; you volunteers will not. You are, in other words, fans, not professionals like us.
Let's say I am organizing a performance for charity. Lots of professional musicians will be playing for free. No one gets paid.
So you can see a lot depends on who is getting paid and who isn't. If no one is getting paid, then it is cool. If some are getting paid and some aren't, then presumably the ones who aren't getting paid fall into the "fan" category or in the "do it for exposure because it's good for your career" category. In other words, the volunteers are a step below the stars, even if that wasn't the intended message. It's a status thing.
____________
I'm a bit frustrated with the Palmer discussions. I don't think she did anything wrong for inviting people to play in exchange for some beer and hugs, but on the other hand, I don't feel the musicians who are asking why they should play for free should be written off as bitter or unrealistic.
How we compensate people and what counts as work is one of the core questions facing the global economy. If we have more people than we have jobs for them to do and yet if we expect people to work for a living, then we have a mismatch between reality and expectations.
I also think Kickstarter should bring to the forefront an examination of artistic collaborations and who gets paid for what. In the past, a lot of the industry was done as a work-for-hire arrangement, but I think Kickstarter now might push more people to think of projects as collaborations where all contributors get a share of the proceeds.
Palmer's approach of having fans play for free reinforces the old concept of a star and her fans. I think that concept is changing and that wall between star and fans will disappear. Everyone will be a participant at an event. Much less, if any, hierarchy.
__________
Burning Man is a good illustration of the future of arts events. The participants themselves are the event. There is lots of art, but no one gets paid for it. Everything is done for free.
Palmer is part of that movement, even if she didn't initially set out to be. She has a community. They have supported her financially. Now that she has money, it's her turn to give back. She can be part of the process that dismantles the star/fan system. Get rid of the hierarchy.
In raising the Kickstarter money and then appearing to use it in odd ways seems to be way more of a turn off for people than anything.
Yes, that has been an issue. Some people have pointed out that although she raised $1.2 million, she didn't actually get to pocket all of that. But others counter that had she planned wisely, she would have had the money to pay the extra musicians.
It IS kind of like the movie/music label song-and-dance which has generated skepticism over the years. "Well, sure we took in millions of dollars, but our expenses were so high we actually lost money."
I'm embracing the discussion as a way to illustrate that the walls between artist and audience/fans are coming down. When the artist has no money, everyone plays for free. As soon as the artist gets more, everyone hopes that the money gets shared more freely among all the contributors.
In Palmer's mind, beer, hugs, and a good time were enough compensation because it has worked in the past. But now with her success on Kickstarter, there's more expectation that she can budget enough to give everyone something. Having both paid band members and unpaid band members is a status thing. One group are her band members and the other group are her "fans." But the community questioned why that should be and Palmer, to her credit, found enough money to pay everyone something.
What has happened with the Palmer/Kickstarter/fan thing is a minor revolution. And perhaps Palmer has been right all along to call her fans her "comrades."
I'll add that this in many respects has played out exactly as a crowdsourced/crowdfunded project should have played out. It was no longer Palmer's project to control on her own because she went to the people to fund it. It became the project of the community at large and they spoke and Palmer listened.
On the post: Amanda Palmer Destroys/Saves Musicians; Chances Of 'Hitting It Big' As An Artist Remain Unchanged
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: unpaid work
This sounds like something that is fun for Palmer fans.
Serving as a showcase for musicians who want to impress the audience and industry types, not so much.
As I have maintained all along, Palmer was just doing what she has always done and it has worked for her in the past. And I think audience participation is a good thing. The more people you can get involved, the better.
I like Palmer's approach to art a lot. Occasionally she does something that ticks off some folks, and she writes intelligent stuff about that process. I highly recommend her blog.
But let's not muddy the waters here by suggesting that she is giving great exposure to musicians wanting to break through to a bigger audience. That's not likely the outcome of playing a few songs as a sideman on stage with her.
In fact, she'd mostly get slammed if she invited people to do this "because it's great exposure." She would know that isn't the case and most musicians would know that isn't the case.
And in hindsight, she shouldn't have said she couldn't pay people because she doesn't have the money (although in her head that might be the reason why she structured it this way).
Conversely, I think the reason she didn't promote this as a "party" opportunity is that she was planning to screen volunteers based on ability. The invitation isn't open to everyone, just those who are skilled enough to be able to sound "professional."
At any rate, I think the discussions of all of this (ie., who gets paid for what) is important.
On the post: Amanda Palmer Destroys/Saves Musicians; Chances Of 'Hitting It Big' As An Artist Remain Unchanged
Re:
On the post: Amanda Palmer Destroys/Saves Musicians; Chances Of 'Hitting It Big' As An Artist Remain Unchanged
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: unpaid work
You know, I know a lot of musicians, have written musician bios, and have been involved with music promotion and marketing.
Playing a few songs with Palmer isn't likely to launch any careers based on audience reaction. Now, it might be possible to connect enough with Palmer herself during the rehearsals and the partying afterward that to impress her, stay in touch, and perhaps collaborate someday.
The audience isn't likely to notice who the volunteer string and horn players are (their job is NOT to upstage Palmer, but stay in the background and play), but perhaps the players can bond with Palmer and use that to their advantage someday.
On the post: Amanda Palmer Destroys/Saves Musicians; Chances Of 'Hitting It Big' As An Artist Remain Unchanged
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: unpaid work
Yes, that's pretty much what the experienced sidemen I know would say.
The people who would jump at the chance are more likely those who learned horns or strings in school awhile ago, and maybe even still jam with friends, but never get an opportunity to play on stage.
But it also puts them in the "fan" category rather than the "professional" category. They may have the talent to be able to pull this off, but it's a treat for them because they never get to do it otherwise.
On the post: Amanda Palmer Destroys/Saves Musicians; Chances Of 'Hitting It Big' As An Artist Remain Unchanged
Re: Re: Re: Re: unpaid work
Aren't you contradicting yourself here? The people playing for Amanda are playing her music. So that would mean the exposure they are getting is, by your definition, not worth anything by since it is Amanda's music they are playing rather than their own.
On the post: Amanda Palmer Destroys/Saves Musicians; Chances Of 'Hitting It Big' As An Artist Remain Unchanged
Re: More on collaborations
Sure, there will be differences in quality, but I don't think those differences will be enough to compel people to pay more for one thing than another as overall consumption goes down and people learn to get by for less.
On the post: Amanda Palmer Destroys/Saves Musicians; Chances Of 'Hitting It Big' As An Artist Remain Unchanged
More on collaborations
Synthetic Overview of the Collaborative Economy - P2P Foundation
This quote comes from page 35.
"To understand the 'price of community' involvement we could ask a few simple questions. Would you collaborate for a for-profit company or any entity that would privatize your contributions without any reciprocity or reward? Would you contribute if in addition to receive no payment you would not be allowed any participation in the governance of the project you are volunteering for? If one participant is paid but not another, is this done using fair criteria, if at all acceptable? Answers to such question can inhibit or promote collaboration."
On the post: Amanda Palmer Destroys/Saves Musicians; Chances Of 'Hitting It Big' As An Artist Remain Unchanged
Re: oh cmon.
Bingo. Palmer is no longer a starving artist, plus she's asked for money from her fans many times herself.
It's her community. Yes, she can ask them to play for free. And by the same token, now that she has some money, they can ask her for money in return. Just as she struggled and needed their money, now some of them are struggling and need her money.
Here's something from her blog from 10/13/09.
Virtual Crowdsurfing - Amanda Palmer: "please understand: i don’t preach this from a high horse, i say this so you (especially who don’t KNOW me) understand that the people i am reaching out to…these people KNOW ME.
a lot of them have MET me. a lot of them have FED me, HOUSED me, helped me carry heavy amps and gear up stairs, promoted my shows in their towns.
to this day, i rely on them for TONS of help. and this is a huge part of why i feel confident that i won’t look like too much of an asshole when i reach out to my fanbase for money.
even those who haven’t helped me directly follow the story, they see how my life functions and they offer what they can.
they’re part of this ride, part of my struggle to live this weird life with it’s many travels and ups and downs.
for the most part, they trust me. and i trust them. time and attention has made that possible."
On the post: Amanda Palmer Destroys/Saves Musicians; Chances Of 'Hitting It Big' As An Artist Remain Unchanged
Re: kickstarter $
I don't know if you have seen this yet. Straight from Kickstarter itself.
"Kickstarter Is Not a Store" - The Kickstarter Blog: "It's hard to know how many people feel like they're shopping at a store when they're backing projects on Kickstarter, but we want to make sure that it's no one."
On the post: Amanda Palmer Destroys/Saves Musicians; Chances Of 'Hitting It Big' As An Artist Remain Unchanged
Re: Re: unpaid work
Palmer was not wrong to ask. Involving her fans has always been part of her show. She was just doing what she has always done and it has been a lot of fun for those who participate.
What has changed is the use of Kickstarter. It expands the sense of "ownership" of this project. You'll see more discussions like this. People want to know where the money is going. And if they think it isn't being spent wisely or fairly, some of them are going to weigh in on the subject.
And that is GREAT. We need more discussions like this.
On the post: Amanda Palmer Destroys/Saves Musicians; Chances Of 'Hitting It Big' As An Artist Remain Unchanged
Re: Volunteerism
This one is about $45 tablets available in China.
Hardware is dead | VentureBeat
This one is about Apple filing even more legal blocks to avoid smart phone competition.
Apple’s $707M, U.S. Sales Ban Filings Against Samsung Underscore One Of Apple’s Biggest Concerns | TechCrunch
Price competition is coming everywhere. Everyone is right to say that there are lots of people who are happy to play music for free. There are lots of people willing to work on lots of stuff for little or no money. And music events will likely be free at some point, too. Communities can organize their own, put them on with volunteers, and invite the community to contribute their skills.
On the post: Amanda Palmer Destroys/Saves Musicians; Chances Of 'Hitting It Big' As An Artist Remain Unchanged
Re: Volunteerism
The first article in my series.
Music and the "Gift Economy" 1: An Introduction
Here's the last in the series with links to the other parts.
Music and the "Gift Economy" 7: Alternative Economies
On the post: Amanda Palmer Destroys/Saves Musicians; Chances Of 'Hitting It Big' As An Artist Remain Unchanged
Volunteerism
Fans will likely to be too broke to buy anything anyway, so we might as well plan for it accordingly. Like I said, hooray for the shareable movement.
On the post: Amanda Palmer Destroys/Saves Musicians; Chances Of 'Hitting It Big' As An Artist Remain Unchanged
Re:
That's the point, I'm making, though. When you have a star and her ever-eager fans willing to do anything for her, it's an unequal, icon-worshipping system. Yes, it exists, but as we give everyone the tools for self-actualization, hopefully there will be less of this and more of everyone finding their own creative abilities.
Palmer is mostly there by creating events where everyone participates. The trip-up here was the perception that she's done something great by raising so much money and that fans should volunteer their services because she's done something great. Palmer is noteworthy by breaking down walls, not by reinforcing them. So for people to complain that it is an unequal system is understandable. In other words, her followers are keeping her "pure."
I welcome the discussion as a step in the direction of more community-run events. Hooray for the shareable movement.
On the post: Amanda Palmer Destroys/Saves Musicians; Chances Of 'Hitting It Big' As An Artist Remain Unchanged
Re: Re: The wall is disappearing
And they didn't, but out of the controversy we've gotten a good discussion about Kickstarter, where the money goes, what happens when someone makes way more than expected and is known for sharing with her fans, etc.
It's been great, actually.
On the post: Amanda Palmer Destroys/Saves Musicians; Chances Of 'Hitting It Big' As An Artist Remain Unchanged
Re: Re: Re: This is upsetting
But that is the point. Palmer is willing to talk about it. That's why she is the perfect person to be in the middle of all of this. Palmer is very transparent. Sometimes some of her experiments generate controversy (her Evelyn project ticked off members of the disability community), but Palmer reads all the comments and responds and says VERY insightful stuff about being an artist.
Palmer didn't do anything wrong in inviting people to participate for hugs and beer. But it triggered a discussion that is very relevant. That in itself was useful. And then Palmer agreed to pay everyone. Which wasn't a concession so much as proof that she's been listening.
Palmer is a lot farther ahead in her thoughts than many of the people defending her. Let her change the system. Don't hold her back with justifications that are last year's news.
On the post: Amanda Palmer Destroys/Saves Musicians; Chances Of 'Hitting It Big' As An Artist Remain Unchanged
The walll is disappearing
But the relationship between art creator and art consumer is disappearing. Palmer has always sensed that because she does include people in her efforts. In the past there hasn't been enough to pay everyone. But now that she has the money, the crowd says, "Share it."
There's a revolution in process, but those who have a vested interest in maintaining what we have don't yet see it. Power to the people who are no longer "fans" but full-fledged creators themselves. The difference between paid artists and unpaid artists will disappear except for those few who are still being marketed under the old system.
Here are a couple of thoughts I've written lately:
__________
Here are some other ways to look at this.
Let's say I am a musician and I am having a party at my house. I invite other musicians over and tell them to bring instruments if they want. It's a jam session. Lots of fun; no one gets paid.
Let's say I have a performance and invite some musicians to come play. The band and I will get paid; you volunteers will not. You are, in other words, fans, not professionals like us.
Let's say I am organizing a performance for charity. Lots of professional musicians will be playing for free. No one gets paid.
So you can see a lot depends on who is getting paid and who isn't. If no one is getting paid, then it is cool. If some are getting paid and some aren't, then presumably the ones who aren't getting paid fall into the "fan" category or in the "do it for exposure because it's good for your career" category. In other words, the volunteers are a step below the stars, even if that wasn't the intended message. It's a status thing.
____________
I'm a bit frustrated with the Palmer discussions. I don't think she did anything wrong for inviting people to play in exchange for some beer and hugs, but on the other hand, I don't feel the musicians who are asking why they should play for free should be written off as bitter or unrealistic.
How we compensate people and what counts as work is one of the core questions facing the global economy. If we have more people than we have jobs for them to do and yet if we expect people to work for a living, then we have a mismatch between reality and expectations.
I also think Kickstarter should bring to the forefront an examination of artistic collaborations and who gets paid for what. In the past, a lot of the industry was done as a work-for-hire arrangement, but I think Kickstarter now might push more people to think of projects as collaborations where all contributors get a share of the proceeds.
Palmer's approach of having fans play for free reinforces the old concept of a star and her fans. I think that concept is changing and that wall between star and fans will disappear. Everyone will be a participant at an event. Much less, if any, hierarchy.
__________
Burning Man is a good illustration of the future of arts events. The participants themselves are the event. There is lots of art, but no one gets paid for it. Everything is done for free.
Palmer is part of that movement, even if she didn't initially set out to be. She has a community. They have supported her financially. Now that she has money, it's her turn to give back. She can be part of the process that dismantles the star/fan system. Get rid of the hierarchy.
On the post: Amanda Palmer Destroys/Saves Musicians; Chances Of 'Hitting It Big' As An Artist Remain Unchanged
Re:
Yes, that has been an issue. Some people have pointed out that although she raised $1.2 million, she didn't actually get to pocket all of that. But others counter that had she planned wisely, she would have had the money to pay the extra musicians.
It IS kind of like the movie/music label song-and-dance which has generated skepticism over the years. "Well, sure we took in millions of dollars, but our expenses were so high we actually lost money."
On the post: Amanda Palmer Destroys/Saves Musicians; Chances Of 'Hitting It Big' As An Artist Remain Unchanged
Re: This is upsetting
I'm embracing the discussion as a way to illustrate that the walls between artist and audience/fans are coming down. When the artist has no money, everyone plays for free. As soon as the artist gets more, everyone hopes that the money gets shared more freely among all the contributors.
In Palmer's mind, beer, hugs, and a good time were enough compensation because it has worked in the past. But now with her success on Kickstarter, there's more expectation that she can budget enough to give everyone something. Having both paid band members and unpaid band members is a status thing. One group are her band members and the other group are her "fans." But the community questioned why that should be and Palmer, to her credit, found enough money to pay everyone something.
What has happened with the Palmer/Kickstarter/fan thing is a minor revolution. And perhaps Palmer has been right all along to call her fans her "comrades."
On the post: Amanda Palmer Destroys/Saves Musicians; Chances Of 'Hitting It Big' As An Artist Remain Unchanged
Re: Kickstarter changes things
Next >>