
Wait wait wait a minute!
Getting paid in beer (and preferably pizza too) is all part and parcel of being a professional-ish musician. It's my preferred payment method to be honest.
Amanda Palmer, the often scantily clad popstrel performer who raised $1.2m from fans on Kickstarter to finance a tour, has yielded to criticism and agreed to pay her backing musicians in a recognised convertible currency - rather than embraces, T-shirts and beer. Palmer, whose most noteworthy achievement in many eyes is being …
Getting paid in beer (and preferably pizza too) is all part and parcel of being a professional-ish musician. It's my preferred payment method to be honest.
I've generally found beer just lowers my tolerance of annoying band mates. So cash is the only reasonable compensation for putting up with the buggers, singers in particular as they are almost always the unbearable ones.
That a certain sector of the public thinks that everyone around them should offer, do everything and work for free but they themselves should somehow be able to make money and keep it all.
I feel therefore, all people from now on should have to work the first six months of their working life for free. Maybe even pay £100 a month for the privileged.
Just to see how that doesn't work for them so they won't ask others to do so in future.
I'm not the biggest fan of internships, but I can at least see they offer something in return for underpaid/free work. An intern gets trained on the job and can usually expect a position within the company when their internship ends (providing their performance hasn't been dire).
Amanda Palmer wasn't offering any of these things. She was abusing the generosity of her fans in order to avoid paying for backing musicians that she could have quite easily afforded.
"Amanda Palmer wasn't offering any of these things. She was abusing the generosity of her fans in order to avoid paying for backing musicians that she could have quite easily afforded."
Bull.
Did you bother to read the orignal blog posts of hers? Where she explained quite carefully that her band gets paid but what they wanted to do was give (relatively) unknown musicians the chance to join them on stage?
You have to apply fairly selective reading to those posts to arrive at the conclusions this article (and the previous article on the same matter) does.
And why does Neil Gaimans name have to be dragged into this - again?
"Did you bother to read the orignal blog posts of hers? Where she explained quite carefully that her band gets paid but what they wanted to do was give (relatively) unknown musicians the chance to join them on stage?"
I read some, she wasn't offering to introduce these musicians to her fans, she wasn't offering training. She wanted 'amateur' musicians because they were less likely to tell her where to stick it when she asked them to perform for free.
Isn't this called an internship? The important feature being that you need to do it in large chunks of the media, meaning that you can only do it if mummy and daddy can support you, meaning that the people in the media are drawn largely from the ranks of those where mummy and daddy can support them.
See also workfare.
This post has been deleted by its author
I'd have gladly done it for beer and free tickets.
Then again, I have no musical talent and at school was never allowed anything more challenging than a triangle and would probably only give myself a 50/50 chance of holding an instrument the right way round. But hey, you get what you pay for, right?
I like Amanda Palmer, but I was with the musicians on this one. I applaud creating new business models, but it's got to be all business. Asking professionals to play for token amounts when work is hard enough to come by is not a sustainable business model, especially when everyone knows you took in a decent pile of cash to meet expenses before the tour even gets started.
Er.... which ones?
The ones who were happy to do it, and didn't have a problem? Or the not-musicians who saw 'she got money, ergo she must give money'?
It was a free and open choice. It's not like anyone was being forced to participate for free, you know, with contracts and stuff. Or being told they were being paid, and then stiffed.
I notice that whole 'bit' was taken out. Kinda like how people are queueing up for Britains got no talent, and guess who's raking in the money? Where's the protests about that? After all, they're dangling the prospect of money up front, while Amanda was clear 'beer+hugs' up front.
She managed to juggle the finances and, by making huge sacrifices in other areas, come up with a little cash to pay the musicians. (Where have I heard this line before.)
"I wish I could pay more, but we barely cover expenses, see? And you get to get paid to do something you love, that you would do for free anyway, right? Oh. Well that's a pretty poor attitude you have there, isn't it. You're lucky I let you play here, that's all I'm saying. But anyway, this is all we can pay, take it or leave it."
Beer, because you also get "one free draft beer per set."
Best not mention the scores of Kickstarters Gaiman backs financially himself, or promotes through Twitter to his 4M followers, or the legal campaigns he supports and fund raises for to help poor artists and writers getting screwed over by Marvel and DC. Or the Open Rights movement he heads or the fact that both he and Palmer release work for free knowing the freetards would never pay for it anyway...
wanted
Stuff like this is all too common place and needs to be highlighted more.
The dance music scene i worked in for ten years suddenly decided that DJs who didnt turn up with a minibus or coach load of full price ticket paying punters werent worth paying for their time anymore.
This has gone on for around 2 years now and the end result is, the really good up & coming DJs all disappeared and were replaced with VirtualDJ DJs.
"Go cry me a river" i hear you shout.
Well for two scenes i worked in, numbers are now so badly thru the floor, a lot of promoters gave up.
The end result is, there are around 75% less independent club nights happening, and the major ones have all put the prices up.
I'll stop ranting, but PAY THE PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR YOU!
Just because they are "creatives" who generally jump at the oppotunity of working (little work is better than no work) doesnt mean you should pay them less, or nothing at all.
Disgraceful she thought she could get away with this in the first place. I hope she is paying the artists that volunteered for free and not just asking her mates to come in and play now they are getting paid, which usually happens...
As a musician (I've done it as a job although nowadays I do it for fun) I find the idea of unpaid work of that kind horrific. I've gladly donated my services as a musician for events for charities, community groups and gigs with great exposure and have always been happy to go to jams (where usually only the house band is paid).
I'm all for personal choice, if any backing musician was offered union rate but said "nah I'll do it for free" then good for them!
But professional entertainment isn't free. Professional accountants aren't free, professional footballers aren't free, professional musicians aren't free. Any one of those groups may include an individual who may volunteer their personal services for free, but no group is free by default.
It seems somewhat shameful to me that Palmer essentially had to be bullied into paying her backing musicians. She's no better than those pub landlord types who expect a professional band to play two hour long sets for a beer each, nevermind the fact that a few beers doesn't even match the cost in petrol to move a band and their gear to the venue.
They seem to have the idiotic impression that:
A) the term 'play' means that performing music is your form of entertainment, and therefore, since it's "fun" for you, then payment for services rendered is optional.
B) that since you "play" for an hour, they should be able to pay you minimum wage for that time, ignoring all the time you spend practising, learning new music, etc.
C) Since they can "replace" you with recorded music, there is no reason at all to pay you.
To which I say:
Fuck you very much.
Way back when I was a 20 year old wannabe rock god we played plenty of places for free just to get the experience/exposure. Or just for fun and the love of playing. Musicians union and the luvvies need to get over themselves. If you want paid get a real job in a cube-farm..
I personally have worked plenty of gigs without being paid in cash: "drink tickets" and free admission ("+1"s) are not without value.
More to the point, I've actually turned down being paid cash at such events simply because it changes the dynamic (for me). If someone is paying me, then I feel I have a duty to them. If someone is "just" giving me an opportunity to perform, then my duty is to me. That may sound unduly subtle, but if I wanted to make money, I'd go and do something high-tech instead...
(I am not a starving artist; I am a well-paid tech geek type who does arty stuff on the side).
Would that be referring to her ripping off of these free musicos or is "The Grand Theft Orchestra" a paid for support act?
Re the freeby support, it's a free(-ish) country, & there's nothing illegal about telling people in advance that you're not going to pay them any money for working for you (though the HMRC/IRS don't take kindly to undeclared barter even if it is beer & tees), but like others have said, to do stuff for free you need money from somewhere to pay the bills, get you to/from venues etc.
If AP wasn't making cash off the back of this and was in the same financial boat as the free musicos, then fair do's, but when this is her very carefully orchestrated personal money making venture (and apparantly she is the one t/making the money) , well it seems like it's an unequal relationship and she's taking advantage. My opinion is it's really a bit shameful to operate like that - but plenty of others will say it's just the free market working (loss leaders etc).
AP is just another wannabee personality, a canny self promotor and money maker, trying to promote a blousey cheery faux-underground following, and doing all that as cheaply as possible. Like Madonna used to be. She is no worse than the city firms taking advantage by churning interns, or Michael O'Leary, who at least tells his customers up front that basically they (don't) get what they (don't) pay for so not to whinge when the service falls apart.
Not nice, but not nice rarely = illegal.
....I would consider the 'offer of a hug' to be more stick than carrot.
I have no idea how here music sounds. Maybe she's so damned good that playing for her is an honour but if that's the case, I am confused as to why she'd need kick-starter funding.
That's a perfectly accepted way of getting your name known. You play support for someone whose music is similar to yours, so you're playing to a thousand people in an auditorium who you already know are likely to like your music. Cool, job done.
Joan Armatrading is currently doing this around the UK. Every show, she has a local singer-songwriter doing support. (Local to me, it's a girl called Alice Walker, who's seriously talented and deserves wider recognition.) AFAIK they're not getting paid, but they're getting their names out in front of a crapload of potential fans, and they're getting to hang out with one of their idols.
This is not quite the same for a horn or string section. Sure, you might get to hang out with one of your idols. But is *any* audience member likely to say "nice work on that cover of Strawberry Fields Forever, let's go and see the string quartet play Mozart next month"? (Hint: the answer is "no".) This is why session musicians get paid per job.
I'd never heard of Ms Palmer, but this does seem to be a fuss about nothing.
According to your article, her original advert 'offered only "beer and hugs" as compensation for [the musicians'] labour'. If the musicians in question were happy to sign up on that basis, they can hardly complain when that's what happens at the end.
"Palmer initially thought she could get away with not paying her fellow artists" - presumably because she advertised for artists who would work for (next to) nothing, and people came forward as a result.
I'm totally against working for nothing, or even for beer and hugs, but I put that principle into practice by never agreeing to work on that basis. If others want to do so, more fool them.
Those who volunteer are presumably doing so voluntarily. Volunteers tend to volunteer their services free of charge. She's told people up front that they won't be paid. So anyone who signs up is presumably happy with that arrangement. If nobody is happy to do that, nobody will sign up, and then she'll be forced to pay people to play with/for her instead. Either way, I'm buggered if I can see why anyone has anything to complain about.
If you're going to eschew Amanda Palmer's identity to her husband's in the article's title, how about changing your writer's credit to "husband of ____ _____"? Or does your identity matter more than a woman's?
Yet again a writer can't bother giving a lick of any credit to a woman who's worked to make a career on her own with no help from her husband. They married very recently and his fortune or lack thereof has nothing to do with her business. But there's no inherent sexism in the males of the IT industry, not at all.
"Yet again a writer can't bother giving a lick of any credit to a woman"
Actually, it's because Neil Gaiman is much more well known to readers than Amanda. Pure and simple. Neil is more of an attention grabber than Amanda. There's nothing sexist about that.
Perhaps a few more stunts like this, she'll have a headline to herself.
C.