ThinkProgress: Over the past week or so, I’ve been watching the back-and-forth between singer and performer Amanda Palmer and musician Steve Albini. The origin of the feud is this: Palmer used a Kickstarter campaign to raise $1.2 million to fund the recording of her new album. She then asked musicians to volunteer to play with her band on her tour, but didn’t guarantee compensation to any of the volunteers, though as she is paying some musicians at some stops on the tour, but not others. Albini criticized her request on the grounds that she could have found a way to pay musicians if she wanted to. “The reason I don’t appeal to other people in this manner is that all those things can easily pay for themselves, and I value self-sufficiency and independence, even (or especially) from an audience,” he wrote.
14 comments:
This is an interesting argument but I think that in the case of Amanda Palmer, the problem really is in the way that she went about paying her artists. It is one thing to tell that artist that they will not get paid, from the start, and have them make the choice to sign on. It is a completely different thing when you tell your artist that they will get paid and they only get paid some of the time or not get paid at all. A lot of people can fall into this trap of working because they are promised exposure. Really, it is an achilles heel of ours because the art and theater community is all about exposure in addition to making connections with fellow artists. In a perfect world, we all get to meet each other and collaborate and strive but that isn't always the case. It really does taint the process when money gets involved and promises fall through or when they weren't very honest to begin with. The artist that is paying the other artists can do whatever they want with their money, but they probably understand what it is like on the other end. They should know how it feels to be taken advantage of, everyone's experienced it in some way, and I hope they change.
I don’t’ know much about this particular case, but the issue of being expected to work for free is endemic in all areas of the art world. Whenever it comes up I am reminded of the ‘We The Few’ metaskills class that we had last year. It is okay to work for free, but before you agree to it, you have to have a clear idea in your head of what you’re getting out of it. Sometime it is important to work for free in order to gain exposure or impress the right people, but you have to be sure that is actually happening. If the artists involved in this case truly felt that their own career would be advanced by playing for Amanda Palmer, then great, by all means play for free. But be sure that you are getting something out of it, not just getting exploited. The other reason that you might do a gig for free is as a favor for a friend. In this case all you might be getting out of it is a stronger friendship and a warm fuzzy feeling from helping others, but at least that’s something. If the only reason you are doing a gig is because you would feel bad turning it down, it’s time to grow a pair and learn how to politely decline.
Wow, what a discussion. Amplifying everything is the fact that Amanda started from roots of busking for donations, playing for free and beer before the Dresden Dolls started touring with Nine Inch Nails. She comes from a history of donating her time for the chance at [insert non-financial compensation benefit here]. And she got exposure, fans and the ability to crowdfund a $1.2 million album out of it! I'm of the mind that if people want to volunteer to jam with Amanda, then let them. I've seen people do more strenuous work with less career development potential for a t-shirt and a free beer before.
I have trouble with people convoluting the album fundraising and the tour in the first place because the Kickstarter explicitly had a mission of producing the album, not making Amanda richer. It's not money into her company, it's funding a project. Honestly, if someone didn't want her paying musicians with it and they donated to Kickstarter, they could complain that the money is being used toward side projects they didn't fund and get the account shut down. Most of Amanda's fans wouldn't do something like that, though.
It seemed to me that Amanda was forward enough about inviting people to sign up and play and about the compensation they'd receive: hugs, merch, beer and appreciation. The people who could justify that payment with the amount of work and time they put in, then that's on them, in my opinion. Amanda may have only been clearer about the fact that album money does not go to touring.
I absolutely agree that artists should have the right to decide how they want to use their talents and if they are getting paid for that use. That being said, it's pretty sucky that Amanda would raise 1.2 million buckeroos for herself and not share any with those who help her along the way. If I was a musician and I heard that, I would NOT play for her unless my result from the show was highly in my favor.
Most of us have accepted internships with no pay at some point in our careers thus far. Its something that we accept as the first step up the ladder to success. However, it also is a learning experience. If these musicians are skilled enough to support her as her band, then they deserve pay.
If I'm reading this article correctly, the musicians agreed to play for Ms. Palmer for free. That might've been a poor choice on their part, considering the success of her recent Kickstarter fund, but they still agreed to those terms. I don't think its fair for the public to judge Ms. Palmer - she didn't trick her musicians or renege on a contract.
On a more philosophical or moral level, this scenario raises a few questions. As others mentioned here, a lot of this goes back to Joe Pino's We the Few lecture. I think people are willing to work for free if its worth it to them in some other context - maybe there's a promise of work in the future that will be met with monetary compensation, maybe there's free food (or in this case, beer) involved, maybe it's worth it to help out a friend, or maybe the work is important enough to participate in. Or maybe not. Every project has to be judged separately.
I wish people who didn't know the backstory behind her kickstarter would stop having opinions about her choice to pay the musicians that she picked up along her tour. I've been following her for almost six years now, back when she was still part of The Dresden Dolls, who primarily performed in small bars in Boston in their early days, and had no intention of fame or fortune.
The kickstarter began some time last year, and if the video is kicking around, the whole point of raising money was for Amanda to create an album entirely on her own because she got fucked (there is no nicer way to put it) by the record label that Dresden Dolls used to be on. She was sick of their incessant pushing for a new album each year that conformed to their standard of a good business model, so she decided to take matters into her own hands, raise money, and tour the country. In this very video, if I remember correctly, she states that she would be recruiting fans to help her in this journey, and would be grateful for any and all support.
So, dear haters, Amanda Palmer did not screw over her musicians. From conception of tour to its actualization, she had not intended on using the money she gained from the kickstarter for anything besides creating an album, the necessary accompanying promotions, and the necessary means to get from tour venue to tour venue. And, if one reads further, Amanda never intended to make this much money from her kickstarter. Not by a long shot. She didn't budget for musicians because she wasn't expecting to be able to.
As a final note, I would be thrilled to work with one of my favorite musicians for free. If I could get any sort of recognition for it, whether from Amanda herself or the community at large, that would frankly be better than getting thrown a couple hundred bucks. Those petty few who insisted on being paid need to suck it up and remember what art is: it's an expression of yourself and what you love. Profit should just be icing on the proverbial cake.
I've gone back and forth on this issue my entire life, and still don't know how I feel about it. On one hand, the musicians are providing a service, and should get compensated for it. That's how our government works. On the other hand, we accept jobs (whether artistic or not) because we get what we feel is an appropriate benefit from it. Whether it is ethically wrong or not, Palmer is not cheating anybody. She said "come play with me" and people are because they see a benefit of it. The benefit isn't monetary. If they didn't think they would receive anything from it, they would have said no. Obviously, she/the experience is providing these musicians with something--something that they feel is equal in value to the service they're providing. Is it wrong to ask somebody for something when they receive no benefit for it? Yes. But in these situations, NOBODY will say yes to you. She's not providing them with money. But the musicians are getting something, or else every single one of them would have turned down the offer.
There is definitely a lot to be said on this controversial issue. I completely agree with Ms. Palmers instinct that "YOU HAVE TO LET ARTISTS MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS ABOUT HOW THEY SHARE THEIR TALENT AND TIME.” But at the same time, I think it's a little deceiving to cry poverty and not have money to pay all the artists, when you're sitting on a million dollar kickstarter fund. Sure, even these new artists can start their own kickstarter fund if they'd like. I agree with other comments that as someone who started from the bottom and worked her way up, she probably should be more generous. But if you look at what she's done as a business model, it's actually pretty clever. And not entirely unethical. I think Big corporations are guilty of committing far worse actions against employees and shareholders, but never held accountable the way Palmer is being held accountable.
Amanda Palmer makes an interesting distinction between deciding independently to play for free versus being a person with a lot of money asking for free labor. But it's also true that it depends on how one goes about asking for such volunteers. Of course, I don't know the whole story behind this article and what Amanda Palmer has been going through to make this call, but it definitely seems a little off. She certainly seems to be a popular, successful enough performer to be able to afford paying for her guest musicians, as is seen by her final decision to actually pay her volunteers. It makes her appear presumptuous to assume that musicians would think so highly of her and consider it such an honor to play with her that they would do it for free. I am glad that she has finally decided to pay them (at least some of them), but it seems she should have made this call much sooner.
I'm not sure what the problem with asking artists to play for free is as long as you are upfront, tell them exactly what they are going to get out of it and give them the choice. And I can't tell in this case whether people are outraged just on principle that she dare ask people to work for free, or whether there was some ambiguity in how she asked people to play to begin with and they only thought they were going to get paid. It feels like it's the former, which rather confuses me, as if the people who decided that they wanted to volunteer their time to play with Amanda Palmer are happy with the fact that they got to play with Amanda Palmer, than how can we criticize their choice? And I don't understand why some people are acting like people volunteering their time to play music for free is an attack on their ability to get paying work.
I think that an artist with a similar concept of how to create art, but with a bit more practical implementation is Joseph Gordon Levitt's hitRECord company. He encourages artists to collaborate, and now with corporate sponsorship, he is able to pay the artists royalties if the project is utilized.
It's actually really cool. Even if you can't contribute, you are encouraged to curate: www.hitRECord.org
Working for free is something I have found to be a huge issue, particularly in the arts industry. I have experienced both sides of the coin. I have worked unpaid for people who have expected me to do whatever, whenever, because I am not being paid to be there and am therefore essentially a slave. Much on the other hand, I have worked for people who have been VERY appreciative of the fact that I was willing to give my time and frankly flattered that they felt I would get enough out of the experience to work for no money. I don't think it's wrong to work for free as a student, but one does have to feel that they will be gaining valuable knowledge. As an actual professional artists I do believe that one should be secure enough in what they do to expect to be paid and be able to make a living off of what they are paid, though.
Well this certainly is a heated discussion. When it comes down to it though, Amanda Palmer asked if any musicians would be willing to play with her for free. She offered numerous other perks, however, and the arrangement seemed to be partially out of fun for the musicians! They were just volunteering for a night or two and were being invited to join Ms. Palmer's show. If the musicians didn't like that they wouldn't be paid, then they shouldn't have agreed to play with her. They knew that they would not be paid, she did not break their agreement. While it is very important to respect an artists' work and to compensate them adequately, in this case no compensation was ever promised to the volunteer musicians. Even if Ms. Palmer could afford to pay them, she wasn't looking for a professional group to hire.. just volunteers, which I think goes back to the idea that this was an opportunity for her fans to play with her more than anything else.
Artists are cheated out of pay so often, due to a couple of reasons. One, they agree to work without pay in return for the exposure, which will hopefully lead to future jobs with pay. It’s a slippery slope for artists in this way, they sometimes feel like they have to take a no-pay job somewhat against their will to gain experience or get their work out there. Secondly, I think people feel comfortable asking artists to work for free. No one would ever ask a construction crew to build a building for free (even if they are being paid very little, they’re still being paid). An artist does art. People see it as a hobby. As fun. Purely. But art sucks, it’s hard, it’s physically, mentally, and creatively exhausting. When will non-artists begin to see how hard our work is and give us the payment and credit we deserve?
Post a Comment