Just what I said: If all people are satisfied in a private transaction, it’s nobody’s business but theirs.
I would say that it would be an okay way to audition a few people here or there, a sort of “open call” if you will. Then, those who stand out could possibly be asked to stay on for a long-term gig. I’ve already learned “Coin-Operated Boy” to teach a piano student, so I could cover the progression on guitar or bass. Likewise, I’ve screwed around with “Girl Anachronism” and other D.D. songs, so I’d be up for some free beers and a chance to jam with somebody who’s at least “cult famous”.
I haven’t seen Amanda Palmer live since her Dresden Doll days, but even then, it seemed clear that she was doing something uniquely participatory in her interaction with her fanbase. She models her act after an odd combination of evening cabaret and streetside busking, and it’s the latter form that she’s really drawing on in this issue.
As another poster noted, having her fans perform during her shows for free is nothing new - at the last DD show I attended, six years ago, there were three or four volunteer performers between the opening band and the Dolls’ set, doing everything from juggling to solo flute performance. It was spontaneous and fun. And I could tell that the performers, none of whom had any sort of real following (because, again, they were just random local folks who were going to the show anyway and volunteered to perform), were as thrilled to have the opportunity to play for a crowd as we were to see them strut their stuff.
The same is presumably true of the musicians now volunteering for Palmer on her current tour. These aren’t session musicians or up-and-comers looking for their big break - at least, not in this venue. They’re fans of Palmer’s music who were planning to go to the show anyway, and now have the chance to play with one of their idols in a live setting, in front of a big audience.
That’s the transaction - and not to get all laissez faire on you, if the market decides that that’s “not enough,” then the availability of volunteers will disappear over time and she’ll have to go through the usual channels to get her backing strings and horns. Or, y’know, just not have them at all. From her post (which, honestly, you should read in full before weighing in - yes, it does the pretentious all-lowercase thing, but it gives some necessary insight into Palmer’s aims and past experiences with crowdsourcing), it sounds like she was stretching her budget just to hire musicians at a few shows. More importantly, the uncontrolled, unpredictable nature of fan involvement is an intentional “part of the fun” for her:
So if it weren’t for the volunteers, of all backgrounds and skill levels, it’s likely she wouldn’t have those backing instruments at all for a lot of her shows. She performs solo quite a lot, so it’s not like she depends on the full theatrical performance to make her money. And I’d wager that if you ask her fans (y’know, those dupes who dumped a million bucks for her Kickstarter campaign - a.k.a. the pre-order system for her new album), I think they’d pretty universally agree that they don’t feel screwed, or tricked, or robbed, and that Palmer should be allowed to run her show as she wishes.
I disagree with the premise. Apple could probably find a bunch of people to staff their stores for free…for a week; I’ve never heard working at an Apple Store described as being particularly pleasant.
This case is an awkward one, though. It comes down, essentially, to whether the unpaid players are “working” or not. Unpaid workers is bad.
But who hasn’t fantasized about being at a concert and having the band say, “Hey! You! Why don’t you come on stage with us for this next one?” It’s such a common fantasy it’s a cliche. Palmer (and the other crowdsourcing bands) is basically giving people that chance.
It’s a fine line. On fine lines, I generally come down on the side of “consenting adults can do what they want.”
…wasn’t Palmer a union organizer early in her career?
Well, yes, obviously the money all went to her, but the expectation was that she would use it to actually produce something with it. She did indeed produce an album and a somewhat subsidized tour, but somehow managed to spend an incredible amount of money doing it-- more than 10x what she was originally asking! The whole DIY ethos is all about making more with less, but she seems to have done quite the opposite here.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Is Neil Gaiman even all that rich? He’s a successful comic book and fantasy author, but neither of those fields are know for being especially rewarding, financially.
[/QUOTE]
He’s had quite a lot of his stuff adapted to TV and movies and I believe has actually done some writing for those as well. He’s not JK Rowling, but he’s definitely doing more than okay.
ETA: Although Gaiman had his own little controversy with the very large speaking fees he charged to libraries, specifically one in Minnesota where he charged $40k, supposedly less than his usual fee. It turns out a lot of that came from grants and he donates the money to charities, but that all sounds to me like he’s doing pretty well.
Right for Apple to staff its stores with volunteers, that is. The answer is that it would exclude poor people from working at Apple stores, because they would be unable to afford to live if they did so. Purely in terms of Apple stores this isn’t a huge problem because the kind of media-savvy hip young people who fit the Apple ethos are unlikely to be drawn from the ranks of the poor anyway. Poor people don’t like Apple, they’re stupid, and they wouldn’t fit in. They’d be shunned by the other workers. The poor can’t afford the same degree of cultural participation as the rich. It’s less of an issue nowadays, what with all media being essentially free, but it’s still there with the hardware.
Expand this out to include Starbucks, Wagamama, anything where the employees are expected to be culturally literate, and you end up with a divided society. The people who can afford to not work never interact with the *working classes
*; and eventually the rich people come to dominate society, and end up governing people that they never interact with or care about.
I’m all for getting rid of poverty; I’m less keen on the idea of doing it by exterminating poor people. Without any chance to earn money the poor will never advance, they will remain poor. Live horrible lives, die young in shit surroundings, no chance. Solves the problem of the poor, but they’re not going to go away that quickly because there are billions of them.
Exactly. Did Scot Halpin need to get paid by The Who for subbing when Keith had one too many animal tranquilizers at the Cow Palace?
I was discussing this just today with a musician friend who is also a friend of Amanda. It’s the musician’s union that is pushing this story. He told me he guested on someone else’s album. It paid $500, but in order to get paid, he had to join the union, which cost $400. The pay wasn’t that important though, as the exposure will be worth so much more. He’s a strong advocate of unions in general, but it’s crap like this that anti-union people will always point at.
Frank Zappa spent more than a million dollars working with the London Symphony Orchestra trying to record his music. After that experience, he got a Synclavier.
He’s worth about $18 Million according to one source, but I wouldn’t rely on that - but he is also the writer of a couple succesful-ish movies and also TV shows.
I don’t think Apple would go for it. I have had someone offer to work for me for free to “gain experience”. The problem is with insurance. When I looked into it, the person would not be covered as a volunteer, and modifying my insurance would cost more than what I would spend to compensate an employee at minimum wage.
So some of you actually think Apple could offer its retail store jobs at as low a wage as they like (including no wage at all), and as long as the employee was OK with the arrangement it would be legal?
Never heard of minimum wage laws?
Minimum wage laws do not apply to volunteer work.
So for the Apple Store analogy:
Payments of Zero and everything above minimum wage would be OK.
Payments between 0.01 dollars per hour and minimum wage would NOT be okay.
I have actually seen this Amanda Palmer person (twice!). It was more by happenstance; I’m not a ‘fan’.
People should be able to do what they want with their free time. If that free time is spent playing music for free… well, I don’t see where the criticism is coming from.
If Amanda Palmer was coercing these people to play music for free, then that would be a problem.
I also think that people are free to criticize Amanda Palmer for being a cheapskate. But that doesn’t make her “wrong.”
Does anyone know how Amanda Palmer is spending $1 million on her new project? Short of using a touring orchestra on all dates, how does a non-superstar act spend that much on an album and tour?
One might disagree with minimum wage laws as well, if one really believed in the principle “Consenting parties can draw up whatever agreement they like”. The law isn’t necessarily the arbiter of what’s correct.
Over the years, I have met many people with the same complaint with me included.
There are some areas where people, for whatever reason, expect you to work for free.
I used to be a teacher and virtually everyone expected me to tutor their kid for free even if they weren’t my student. I guess a teacher is just supposed to leap at the chance to help kids and give up their free time for no pay or they must not be a good teacher or something.
Musicians, like the OP, I have heard complain quite a bit. A friend of mine is a musician and can struggles to get a paying gig. Musicians are supposed to play for free for the ‘exposure’ as someone said. The problem is, it is always about exposure and there seems to be little paying gigs.
I knew a couple archeologists when I was in school and they complained that they couldn’t get a paying job in their field when in school. They were expected to get themselves to the site, many times in a foreign country and pay for everything including food and lodging etc…because there is a flood of people (non archeaolgists) that, I guess, WILL do it for free just to do it.
Even in my current job I freelance on the side and am constantly asked to do things for free or at very low rates so that I can “get my foot in the door” and have the potential of much business…and I am a statistical consultant! I quickly learned that these people are full of male bovine manure and have never had someone I did this for get me future business at a good rate of pay though I have had with people willing to pay me from the first job on.
In all cases if you stand your ground and demand a fair wage you are punished. If you are a teacher you have people going around saying you are a bad teacher because you wo’t work for free. If you are a musician/archeaologist etc you just don’t get work because there are many people out there willing to buy into the BS and do it for the exposure etc so you don’t get to do what you want to do.
It’s tough, but such is life.
Working at an Apple Store (a for-profit, private sector employer) would not count as the sort of volunteer work exempt from minimum wage laws.
It sounds like if there isn’t a volunteer horn player in a city, then she just does without for that show. Which is fine with me. If she was using volunteer horn players in some cities but paying for professional horn players in other cities, then that would bother me and I would want her to pay the volunteers as well.
I don’t think the exposure thing is a good argument though. As faithfool says below, they aren’t being introduced:
I’m not sure how much exposure they’d get anyway even if she did introduce the musicians. Maybe if Joe Smith volunteered and played horns at a show and there happened to be a band looking for a horn player then it would help Joe out. But the other average fans there probably aren’t going to google Joe Smith and find if he has any horn albums they can buy.
So if she’s advertising this as a way for musicians to get exposure, then that’s not great and somewhat exploitative. But it sounds like it’s more advertised as a fun thing to do and to play with some great musicians, in which case I have no problem with it and with not paying the volunteers.
What is with you people who advocate giving up the basic concept of morality? You know, the concept that you do have the right to interfere in someone else’s business if what they are doing is immoral?
For an extreme example that disproves what you say: what if the contract was that the musicians had to commit murder for her? They both agree to the terms of the contract.
We definitely do have the right to police immoral actions. That you think this isn’t one of them is fine, but acting as if there’s nothing you would stop?
As for me, I didn’t have a problem until I realized that she misappropriated money from her fans. I’m wary of rich people in general, but those who got their money from charity? That pisses me the fuck off. She’s like those rich people who constantly go around begging for money rather than getting a job to pay for it.
Or to put it another way–they’re free to enter into an exploitative contract. But I’m free to not to patronize this crap and to complain about how I think she is immoral, and try to dissuade people from letting her get away with this. The fact that they are free to enter into a contract has nothing to do with whether I think what she’s doing is moral.
Then the victim would be an involved party, and it becomes their business as well – and possibly law enforcement’s business, as arranging for/committing murder is illegal and therefore they also become an involved party. But I still don’t see how it becomes your business.
You have absolutely no right to define morality for anyone but yourself, and you certainly have no right to police anyone else’s actions based on your definition. Sam A. Robrin has it right: the details of any arrangement are nobody’s business but the parties involved.
They will have something they can put on their resume or CV, and someone will very probably put a video up on YouTube. “I worked with Amanda Palmer” has some value in the right circles.
I don’t see what the big deal is. If the musicians don’t want to play they won’t. If they do, why do you care?
I’m honestly baffled as to why this is a controversy.