This is just blowing me away. How people are throwing around accusations of immorality and comparing this to an exploitative contract is insane to me.
Amanda Palmer is offering people a chance to play with her onstage! As an amateur musician, participating in a concert with a band I love would be a dream come true (Amanda Palmer is not really my cup of tea, though I did like the Dresden Dolls a lot).
In economic terms, from the perspective of a concert-goer, this is simply added value for anybody who would be interested. It makes the event of that concert much more meaningful an experience - hell, some musicians will often have the audience sing for a song or two, or clap, or have random people come up and dance onstage, and we don’t put their asses in the fire for not compensating anyone. Participating is fun! It’s an extra attraction that makes the experience more enjoyable!
And if you value your musical talents enough that playing for free is not something you’re willing to do, then it’s very easy not to do it: don’t volunteer. Or if you’re a volunteer and stop having fun, then just quit. Ta-da! Inviting amateur musicians/fans to join in and play can only add value to the concert, and is at worst neutral value for a non-participating audience member.
Hell, I’d go to a lot more concerts (paying full price, happily) if I could play with the musicians on stage. I play music all the time for free - for myself, my friends, and random strangers in the park. Why wouldn’t I jump at the chance to play with a group I like? It’d be a lot more fun than the free “concerts” I give anyway. If Amanda wants any guarantee of professionalism and ability, she’ll have to shell out actual money for pro or semi-pro musicians, but I think she gets that. Both Palmer and the volunteers seem to be walking into this arrangement with eyes wide open, and having fun.
A local friend and musician, Zack Wiesenger was a guitar phenom at an early age. But no bands would hire a kid not old enough to even be in the bars where they played.
He developed a rep by attending concerts (mostly blues and blues/rock) with guitar in hand. Every so often he’d wind up on stage, blowing away the crowd. Eventually he would get a phone call requesting him to show up and join the performer on stage for a song or two. It worked for him.
So, if Palmer is at moral fault here for offering to let amateurs perform with her for free, because she could be paying professionals, are the amateurs equally at fault for accepting, and thus squeezing out the professionals?
I’m not a photographer, but I would think the reason that professional photographers would be bothered by it is because it makes a lot of clients expect work for nothing or nearly nothing. A client will contract work out for a fashion shoot or whatever, and then not pay the reasonable price on the invoice, because the reasonable price seems outrageous to the client, since one time the client’s nephew took photographs and was only paid $50 and given some pizza. There are constantly posts like this on the website Clients From Hell, for photographers, graphic designers, website designers, and other freelancers with clients who have vastly incorrect expectations on what prices will be because they’ve gotten things free or dirt cheap previously. Obviously in cases like this it’s the client who is behaving wrongly, not the nephew amateur photographer, but I could still see why a professional photographer would be bothered by the client’s expectations.
Of course the professional photographer can go to court and maybe get their money from the client that they are due. But I would assume most professionals would rather not go through that hassle, and would rather have a client base who realized what market rates were and were willing to pay them.
I’m not saying I don’t see why pros aren’t bothered by it, but I don’t think it’s completely justified. If I can’t convince a client why I’m worth several thousand dollars to photograph a wedding, or if a client doesn’t think I’m worth that because they can get their nephew to photograph the wedding for free or nothing, hey, have at it. If prices get depressed because of competition, hey, I don’t like that, of course, but that’s the free market for you. My own prices have only been going up, despite the competition and huge studios that do $800 all-inclusive packages with two photographers, prints, albums, etc.
How about a little thought/explanation behind the “you’re wrong!” foot-stomping?
(a) No one said anything about permission.
(b) No one said anything about your ability to develop your moral values.
(c) I have decided that it is immoral to use the word “evil” in a user name, therefore my personal code demands that I start campaigning to have you banned. Oh, and a lot of other people agree with me, so there’s a pretty good chance that I’ll be successful. You’re cool with that, right?
That makes sense. I just know it’s hard out there for freelancers of many professions, but I know that many can make a living from it and I’m happy for those that do.
It is, indeed, difficult, and the reason I got out of editorial photography. It may happen yet to me in the wedding industry, although I believe there will always be an upmarket that doesn’t care what a photographer costs or judges quality by an increased sticker price, so that’s where there’s an advantage over editorial, where there is a profit motive to those hiring you.
But my attitude is, you can sit there and bitch about it and let it eat you up, or you can just accept that there will always be people who are willing to work for free, for exposure, etc., and find a way to compete with that. There’s very little chance I would be a photographer still today if it wasn’t for the market, so if the market changes and I can no longer make a living at what I do, then I’ll be happy for the many successful years it has given me. (God, for someone who identifies as a leftist, I sound like a rabid right-wing capitalist here, don’t I?)
Agreed. I long ago decided I cannot compete with people willing to work for free/little. I have my price and I stick to it…take it or leave it…and most people leave it. Where I get my heart warm and fuzzied is when these people go with the cheap option and get into trouble…when that happens I do NOT charge to their rescue. They want help/get into trouble, they must pay even more or what is the incentive to just not do the same thing in the future — Only use me when they run into trouble?? I’m willing to be a trouble shooter but one must pay more for that service.
As for the OP, I’ve thought about it more, and I have absolutely no qualms with what Amanda is doing. I think it adds a fun, fan participation dynamic to the show, along with the unpredictability of using amateur musicians. Having pros there would change the nature of the whole set-up. In my line of business, some photographers, believe it or not, will PAY to shoot a wedding with a high profile wedding photographer. Yes, that’s right. They will pay for the privilege of working with you.
(Flip side is you get to use the photos you take for your portfolio, if you wish. But still. To pay to shoot someone’s wedding, even as an auxiliary photographer? Get out of here!) So, yeah, I hardly see her sin in setting something up like this for her fans.
