Heartland

why i am not afraid to take your money, by amanda f**king palmer

I think Amanda's article is spot-on. If you haven't been following what she's been up to, let me summarise: she's been building a direct relationship with her fans/customers (choose whichever term you prefer), unmediated by middlemen (record companies, PR agencies, galleries, etc) using her blog, Twitter, email, webcasts etc. And she's being open about how much money she's making this way.

Being open about what money you're making from your art/music/[insert chosen medium here] seems to be an uncomfortable subject in many people's eyes. I don't see why - I prefer the openness and transparency.

I don't really feel the need to know what an artist is earning. Beside that, all voluntarily given informations don't necessarily need to be really honest.

I don't think the article's about needing to know what an artist is earning

but from your summarize it looks like. i also don't need to that, but i am interested in know how much takes middleman. I'm also interested how artists (musics, writers) had from single copy of their album/book.

IIRC Michael Jackson had one of the best deals with his record company- he received 40 percent of the wholesale price of each cd-about 2 1/2 pounds .Lesser artists receive nowhere near that percentage

lazarus corporation wrote: Being open about what money you're making from your art/music/[insert chosen medium here] seems to be an uncomfortable subject in many people's eyes. I don't see why - I prefer the openness and transparency.

It should be left at the decision of the individual ... everybody knows:
the less you've got, the less you get, because you need some ...

On the other hand there are people who really have a respect for the work
of whatever artist, who do know the cost (partly beyond price, anyway) ...
who might be willing to pay a reasonable price, but there are few.
(Others might not even be able to pay all that much or anything at all ...)

In addition, many artist are - artists, and somewhat lack the talents of a
sales manager ... with or without transparency.

I read Amanda's article and ,of course,she's absolutely right.Why give money to a bunch of suits who have nothing to do with the music?A better system would be to give all the money to the artist and let the artist then pay the record company for services rendered-manufacture,promotion,etc.

Being open about what money you're making from your art/music/[insert chosen medium here] seems to be an uncomfortable subject in many people's eyes. I don't see why - I prefer the openness and transparency.

Because some people think that artists will get compromised by money. eg. the artist might end up thinking "should I add a catchy chorus, just to get people 'hooked'?"

This is not a view I subscribe to, but I think that's why.

Go Amanda.

Nadia81 wrote:I read Amanda's article and ,of course,she's absolutely right.Why give money to a bunch of suits who have nothing to do with the music?A better system would be to give all the money to the artist and let the artist then pay the record company for services rendered-manufacture,promotion,etc.

Because artists should do the job they're meant to do and let the suits do theirs.

Most artists don't like all the hassle that is the entertainment business, they just want to make music. However, in order to reach a wider audience you need to do some promo and PR.

That's where the suits come in. You CAN do it yourself, certainly when you are small fish like, say, For Greater Good, but when things get serious you need men with a business-mind to do the paperwork.

IZ.

egzakilla Iz.

Yes,okay,but instead of having the artist work for a bunch of suits-let the suits work for the artist.The artist should be the employer,not the employee.That's how it usually works in other fields- a man starts a business and as the business grows,he hires others to help him run things-accountants etc.

Nadia81 wrote:Yes,okay,but instead of having the artist work for a bunch of suits-let the suits work for the artist.The artist should be the employer,not the employee.That's how it usually works in other fields- a man starts a business and as the business grows,he hires others to help him run things-accountants etc.

Spot on!

While it's definitely the case that even a moderately successful artist couldn't handle the business by themselves, I think it's far better (for the fans and for the artist) if the artist hires the business staff rather than a business hiring the artist (such as when a band gets signed to a record label - we've all read about Von's arguments with WEA which basically resulted from him not being in control).

Amanda Palmer certainly has people helping her (a web guy and a marketing woman called Beth - there may be others), but she's running the show, and she's constantly communicating - directly - with her fans rather than having marketing departments write sanitised press releases.

So the good thing is that now artists have a choice - take the money offered by a business (and relinquish a lot of creative control) or start your own business. If some artists still want to pursue the former option then that's absolutely fine, but I suspect that an increasing number of artists will be looking at the latter option over the coming years.

Ahtram wrote:Spam

Kindly f**k off

Spammer banned and spam removed.

You know weebs when you quote the spam it just makes more work for the Mods cos we have to delete the spam from your post as well as from the original...