amanda palmer's open poem to jonathan chait (and other crimes)

oh my godddd

yeah, he was selling a future which not coincidentally had him at its (hipster) nucleus. AP I think is working a similar schtick from a slightly different platform.

xxp

it was semi-intended, give me a little credit

― Darth Icky (DJP), Thursday, 21 March 2013 15:10 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I read it as if you were saying it was yourself that got fantastic reviews...

Iknow, that was ages ago...

p sure what makes amanda palmer so annoying is that she's cheerleading for a system of remuneration in which the people who actually make things have to depend on the voluntary generosity of their paymasters, as if we haven't had several centuries to see how that works out. and the fact that it's working out well for her at the moment appears to be the only criterion she gives a shit about

homeless man: "i am broke and starving and lost and my life in ruins."

ap: "did you remember to ask for money?"

i mean she's essentially right-wing, i guess i'm not blowing any minds here with that statement but it's worth remembering occasionally that she has more in common with ed meese than kathleen hanna

Sarah Palin might be a better comparison, she has a similar cult of personality and "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality.

xp - the thing is, that's a lot of how the non-profit economy works in America. Most of America's cultural institutions, both large and small, have to depend on the voluntary generosity of their "paymasters". She just seems to be applying that model to the individual artist, which is what kickstarter does to an extent. I feel like the brouhaha with the kickstarter campaign and the "booze and hugs" musicians wouldn't have been an issue if the project was funded privately, or from her own resources, or by a label. But because it was presented in this public contribute-to-a-charity way, the fact that she wasn't completely charitable in the way she conducted the work garnered the same reaction that a lot of non-profits or government agencies get when there is perceived inequity.

p sure what makes amanda palmer so annoying is that she's cheerleading for a system of remuneration in which the people who actually make things have to depend on the voluntary generosity of their paymasters, as if we haven't had several centuries to see how that works out. and the fact that it's working out well for her at the moment appears to be the only criterion she gives a shit about

but the thing is, and this is extra-annoying but that's life: if you are a recording artist, life in the digital age means that you depend on the voluntary generosity of your paymasters if you want to be paid for your recorded music. What she has learned that if you 1) acknowledge this and then 2) say that it's awesome and is the future!!, people will reward you for your stance by giving you money for the records they otherwise would still grab but wouldn't pay you for.

it's a very calculated stance, in my opinion, and a tempting one: it works like a charm, on the evidence. But that system she's cheerleading, that's just how it is, if you can game it to pay you by saying it's nice, why not

she has a similar cult of personality and "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality.

Is that like Sarah Palin or just like a whole bunch of rock stars and rappers with healthy egos? "I built that" is the cornerstone of many artists' self-belief. I don't think that makes her right-wing but boostering a (new! exciting! revolutionary!) system that she must know (and indeed has said before) only works for a lucky few is disingenuous.

because that system can only work for a few people who already have advantages, is why not, it's an antediluvian i-got-mine mentality that deserves to be taken out to the woods to die

Most of America's cultural institutions, both large and small, have to depend on the voluntary generosity of their "paymasters".

right but they're institutions, and they can do things that individuals - even a powerful individual like amanda palmer - can't, i.e. create grants, do outreach, put on workshops, start mentoring programs - that energize people and create a sense of community, and develop their own momentum

But the reason she got hers is that she cultivated a fanbase. Roadrunner gave her the platform but the fan outreach was all her doing.

Annoying though she can be, I find myself moved to defend her against the Worst Person Ever line.

why not just eliminate all public services and then people can fill out applications for garbage collection and medical care, and if they're really great and interesting and their application includes an unexpected painting on the last page, then they totally deserve not to die in a ditch after getting run over by amanda palmer's tour bus

i don't know if she is really making that claim universally. There is a difference between "who should be a professional artist" and "who has the right to a humane existence because they are human beings." I think you are unfairly and probably inaccurately extrapolating her position on artistic success

it's true, i'm extrapolating. but the two aren't so far apart i don't think. making art is labor. her philosophy about how that labor should be compensated is so retrograde and right-wing that it's basically pre-capitalist.

i guess the issue is that should any and all labor that anyone does be compensated? like, should everyone who records an album be guaranteed a payment of $100? $1000?

Annoying though she can be, I find myself moved to defend her against the Worst Person Ever line.

In an masochistic (and predictable) effort to dilute my own annoyance about her, I listened to her album and it's pretty good! Not my thing obv, but I can definitely see how "die-hard fans" would go to bat for her, if they came to her through her music first

starry-eyed ukelele prophet: artists should subsist on a diet of love and hugs and togetherness and beggary of gifts!
moneybags owner-operator: heh sounds good to me

thing is, as she says, her model of constant emotional labor as a cut-around for atrophied funding flows to tangible labor probably IS the future of music

i guess the issue is that should any and all labor that anyone does be compensated? like, should everyone who records an album be guaranteed a payment of $100? $1000?

This is not the issue at all. The issue is "is it okay to look askance at the motives of someone who sets a $100K budget for an artistic project who, when they raise $1.2 million, turns around and says 'now I need free musicians to play this on tour'?"

the thing is, though, she is not a charity, she is not a government agency, she is a person, and if she makes a lot of money, she can just keep it and be rich. I mean, c'mon DJP, do you give all your excess income to the needy and deserving? Maybe you just buy a nice new car because you have every right to do so.

wtf

DJP doesn't propose that the future of human society is we all give him money.

'well now…'

it's more wtf how people are holding her to a higher standard than other successful artists

How many other successful artists explicitly send out appeals for professional-level musicians to play for the for free?

i don't think any of this discussion actually even addresses her as an artist!

i think her music is super lame

^^ there u go

It seems like she takes an unfair amount of flak for doing these things merely because she is really annoying.

i'd love to read something comparing her to lil b

I'm only being half facetious. I think the unpaid musician thing, while NAGL, was really overblown. But I also just find her really corny and irritating and self-aggrandizing.

at any rate, I've already stated why I dislike her; everything sketchy thing she does in service of self-promotion or brand advancement for her adoring public is just confirmation of shitty behavior I knew about from way before her profile became "Kickstarter messiah"

xxp - charitable concerts and benefits?

xp I think that's about right. She's written some really good songs imo but her schtick can be very irritating.

i never said she had good songs

imo

the issue of what is fair compensation for musicians and artists is something I think a lot about - mainly because of what I do for a living - and I don't want to sound glib or overly "that's just the way it is". It is a complex issue, because a lot of people like playing music for "fun" or "for their mental health" - but it does make for a fucked up economy, and artistic labor is viewed differently than that of a lawyer or a doctor.

she was in a band with a very good drummer (shewroteallthesongs).

the thing that bothers me is she's so manipulative of the people that love her the most. she seems like one of those ppl that's incapable of really empathizing with anyone as a person, you're just an extra in the grand movie of her life. she reminds me of ppl i really hate in real life. to me, people like that are the lowest of people.

also she invokes DIY and to me that belongs in a tradition of US punk and underground music that made me, as a person, feel like i was part of a community and there wasn't this huge separation between the artist and the audience. there were times when people (not even famous people necessarily just local bands that i loved and admired) would talk to me or give me encouragement and that meant more than the world to me.

one time, we were doing this benefit show and grant hart was also on the bill, we had worked up "don't want to know if you are lonely" and i screwed up my confidence (i was so nervous) and went to talk to grant. i said hey were were going to do your song and maybe since you're here would you want to do it with us? and grant, for how messed up he's supposed to me, was really gracious and said "sure, why not?" so he came up and did that song with my band and we were NOBODIES....it was a thrill of a lifetime. i've had similar interactions with people in shellac and US maple and other bands even less famous that were the same. they were just people and didn't seem to think that i was just a "fan" they treated me like a person, even if it was just a conversation about music we liked.

with palmer, selling $1000 passes to get "hug" from her or selling off her own literal garbage like empty wine bottles to the highest bidder, seems ugly beyond measure to me, and really disgusting when you consider that many of those people who would agree to do that in the first place probably feel really alone and for whatever reason have put a lot of personal stock in her and her music. and she can't even once treat them as more than a commodity, something to be harvested.

this is fundamentally different to me, both because of what she's selling which is really just what should be normal human interaction, and how she places it in the contest of the history of DIY.

for how narcissistic, for example, madonna or lady gaga or morrissey or mick jagger may be, and even how greedy they are, at the end of the day they only interact with you in terms of giving you something for your money -- an album you love or putting on a show. and the in the case of madonna or gaga or the stones, i think they really do put a lot of effort and thought into giving the audience their money's worth when you go to see them. they also don't pretend that it's more than that. (maybe gaga does a bit but still).

there was even a video recently where Pink stopped a show because a little girl was crying because 2 women were fighting and she gave the girl a rice crispie bar and a teddy bear that had been placed onstage....even in this huge enormous arena spectacle that seemed like Pink acting like a human being to the audience, i know that's a small thing but still it matters.

with palmer there just seems like this total lack of empathy for anyone or anything that isn't her, or can't be useful for her.

http://youtu.be/h57XWrFNGs8

skip to 5:10

xp tangent, but there seems to be a thing now with popstars more explicitly selling that sense of community or friendship that fans feel; lady gaga, bieber, minaj, lil b, maybe even odd future in their way...

xpost - what the fuck are ppl applauding that for?

Fan clubs have existed since the dawn of celebrity

http://youtu.be/h57XWrFNGs8

skip to 5:10

'my whole life is this struggle to figure out what's too exhibitionisty'

losing that struggle

The blatant monetizing of fandom is such a huge thing now (and no, DJP, it's not fanclub business as usual) and I think Palmer at least seems sincere about it (as does Gaga, not so much Bieber). As far as I can tell she does give back in many ways. There was a girl who once gave her some fan art so Palmer paid her to design a Dresden Dolls poster and off the back of that she got more work and is now making a living as an artist. That strikes me as pretty decent. It's not just take take take and I don't believe her fans are vulnerable or gullible enough to put up with her in great numbers if that's all it was.

every person that bought an empty wine bottle out of amanda palmer's recycling is now self-employed as an artist

good long post matt

As far as the sexism charges, I don't necessarily agree. Gene Simmons has long been called a whore by a great many people for actually helping to pioneer the douchbaggery that Palmer acts entitled to, for example.

Good post ums