Best Music Writing 2012

retrospectively i'm disappointed because i signed up for a tote, which would have been nice. but i didn't even remember i signed up for a tote, so i can't be _that_ angry about it.

plus since i signed up for the tote i've gotten at least two free totes as promo schwag, and i have lots of bags honestly. it's just a bag.

This is only one of the Kickstarters that I've funded that hit its goal and never delivered. This is how Kickstarter works, and it's worked this way for four years. I'm sure Daphne is more upset and under more stress about this than I am about my $30.

And hey: she's going to send out the list of official selections, which has value by itself. That's all I was looking to get out of this.

i understand why some were quick to project, but i think the reason most critic-types (myself included) were being quiet about this is because someone they were friendly with did something that was fucked up, embarrassing, and also concerning. whiney aside, it's rare one responds to that by being really loud on twitter, either to defend or complain about what happened.

also while 17k was missing, most people only gave $20-25 bucks, so it's not like there was a lot of individual financial impetus to raise a stink.

“I have done the number crunching and given my current revenue streams it should take about three years of monthly payments to backers.”

This is honestly the only part that bugs me. I didn't contribute, but as someone who put together an anthology (that Daphne contributed to, btw), I feel like you don't get to spend that money (in my case, an advance from Da Capo) on food, rent, Netflix, weed, etc. You put it in its own bank account and use it for project-related expenses only. If this project never went anywhere, that money should have just been sitting there untouched, ready to be sent back to the donors.

I'm just bummed I won't be getting a batch of dirty limericks about dc Talk.

^ yes. (xpost)

People say this as if she's making a huge sacrifice: She intends to pay back all backers out of her own pocket

People gave her $20 and $30 and $500 and she put that money into her pocket. So it makes sense that she would pay them back out of it.

I do feel sad for her if she had already paid various other co-editors etc, and is now having to repay that as well.

So, the money. The $15k that I had hoped for was money I knew I needed to produce only the intellectual property for the title -- editorial stipends, administrative staff, and payment of reprint license. To my grave error this was not a realistic number -- the reality is that it would take another $10k to produce that property, and another $10k to produce and publish a book. I had intended to raise additional funds in pre-sales, but as the project stalled I thought it dishonest to move forward in any way with money.

I have no idea what percent of the money was paid out/pocketed, and I'm not suggesting people shouldn't be wagging fingers (esp if they lost money), but considering editors aren't complaining about not getting paid, it does suggest she didn't run off with the wad.

from these failed kickstarter stories it seems like smaller-scale stuff like this only works out if you basically make everyone work for free until you ship. if you allow any overhead expenses at all, they tend to eat up the cash before you can actually produce product.

The culture of vice magazine and tweeto-da-fé can get pretty gross but yknow what $17k is a lot of money that might have stayed disappeared without said culture

Then again why do I need to have an opinion on this man I'm turning into treezy

from these failed kickstarter stories it seems like smaller-scale stuff like this only works out if you basically make everyone work for free until you ship. if you allow any overhead expenses at all, they tend to eat up the cash before you can actually produce product.

also, thinking pre-sales will save you ignores the fact that kickstarter donations ARE basically pre-sales

Re her reference to "dishonesty", disappearing for a year and spending that money was somehow honest? I and others emailed her politely long before the Vice article came out and she ignored the messages.

She was occupied

oh for fuck's sake. the descending of the vultures here is and remains really gross and I am disappointed in basically everyone for doing it

who wins here: 20-year-olds who fancy themselves the crit game Julian Assange; other 20-year-olds who can afford another six-pack now. who loses here: basic assuming of good faith?

^^

Tbf per curmudgeon a simple response might have indicated good faith

This whole thing is a bummer tho I liked these

katherine otm obv

a silent year's grace isnt good faith enough, shame on all u kneejerk vultures

The culture of vice magazine and tweeto-da-fé can get pretty gross but yknow what $17k is a lot of money that might have stayed disappeared without said culture

this is basically the thing, isn't it?

I feel like you don't get to spend that money (in my case, an advance from Da Capo) on food, rent, Netflix, weed, etc. You put it in its own bank account and use it for project-related expenses only. If this project never went anywhere, that money should have just been sitting there untouched, ready to be sent back to the donors.

for all we know what she has already spent - which she's going to be paying back - was used on project-related expenses. I seriously doubt the money came in and she just kicked back and did no work on the project, engaged no-one else to work on it, did nothing towards the setting up of the publishing company that would have required money, etc etc etc.

also ppl come on $17k is not _a lot_ of money. not when u can step up your game and make $94k with bennies.

xp-to-self
like, it seems like she planned badly and then it made her full of terror and panic and she couldn't think about it and so on. But I doubt she realised how badly she'd planned until she was quite some way into producing the book, a process which will have eaten up a lot of the money.

"like, it seems like she planned badly and then it made her full of terror and panic and she couldn't think about it and so on. But I doubt she realised how badly she'd planned until she was quite some way into producing the book, a process which will have eaten up a lot of the money."

exactly, but what I'm seeing isn't this but "look at this writer who absconded/made off/took off and ran with $17,000!" (all paraphrased actual tweets) or, y'know, "I can just see her lying on a bed of cash in Zuccotti Park."

for all we know what she has already spent - which she's going to be paying back - was used on project-related expenses. I seriously doubt the money came in and she just kicked back and did no work on the project, engaged no-one else to work on it, did nothing towards the setting up of the publishing company that would have required money, etc etc etc.

That's why communication is good. If she had been open about her struggles, way more people would have her back. Lots of participants in this drama don't know Daphne well enough to presume good faith.

oh for fuck's sake. the descending of the vultures here is and remains really gross and I am disappointed in basically everyone for doing it

Speaking as someone who has never met Daphne but who tries really hard not to be a snarky internet vulture asshole, the reactionary fury of some of the people who have Daphne's back is completely bewildering.

some of these posts are a lock for best disingenuous point-missing of 2013 (plz donate to my kickstarter)

"a simple response" is never so simple tho. Daphne: ...it has taken additional time to write to you, but I hope you understand that this was due to a sort of panic about how to save the title." This is so familiar. The feeling that "it still could happen!" is always there and it's a major step to have to write to backers to say "we've run out of money and I don't know what to do" because it basically is an admission that you're on the hook for 17K

"Now that the circlejerk crit circle have co-signed her to be the nicest and most reliable person ever, her radio silence is nothing in retrospect!"

i'd bet that personal level of outrage towards daphne carr (including demanding one's own $20 back) correlates strongly with self-identification re personal fiscal responsibility

@ sean, speaking from personal experience, the people I know who've received a grant to "make a thing", and that thing is not made, and the money needs to be returned, that money was spent 100% on expenses and rentals and labour, not spent on Netflix. I guess it makes sense that punters would assume that you automatically get a lobster dinner upon receiving a grant but that has not at all been my experience.

the reactionary fury of some of the people who have Daphne's back is completely bewildering.

― sean gramophone, Friday, 23 August 2013 17:47 (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

ya this is it

I'd say it has more to do with self-identification re one's fight vs. flight response

let's just say we're all projecting our bullshit on a fucked up situation

mostly

also, I... don't think this is the "circlejerk crit circle"? the lines are being drawn in weird places compared to what I've seen. honestly, and at the risk of burning bridges: the crowd of people who write for VICE is much more of a circlejerk crit circle.

i didn't donate to this but had i contributed i would've been fine just assuming that shit got fucked up and not getting my money back, but the opposite response is totally understandable/justified

da croupier otm

@ sean, speaking from personal experience, the people I know who've received a grant to "make a thing", and that thing is not made, and the money needs to be returned, that money was spent 100% on expenses and rentals and labour, not spent on Netflix. I guess it makes sense that punters would assume that you automatically get a lobster dinner upon receiving a grant but that has not at all been my experience.

for the record, def not my experience! so many artists and creative types are bad at money management, and chronically broke, which makes them shitty at managing sudden windfalls.

in this case, by "shitty at managing", i mean "wasteful and prone to rewarding themselves for years of ramen with several lobster dinners".

I can just about imagine doing this and then hiding under some coats for a year so I can sympathise, but eventually I would have to face the music, and the least difficult part of that music would be twenty people on a message board saying "this could have been handled better". Sorry about your mate but chill

Xps

I also can't be the only person for whom this Kickstarter con story was fresh-in-mind.

"chronically broke"

because the default state of someone in the publishing industry in 2013 is something else?

^^^

also maybe they were "development grants" :)

xp
What are you talking about? That's what I mean by "bewildering fury". Katherine: I wasn't criticizing anyone. I was just noting this reality.

I guess that's the thing: "con story." To me, "con" says that someone is deliberately out to screw people over. (The legal definition of fraud certainly says so.) And to me, that's a hell of an accusation to make of anyone without ironclad proof. It's not about cronyism, it's not about cliquishness, it's about maybe starting from the assumption that people weren't scammers (or lazy ne'er-do-welling spend-it-all-on-weed types).

I don't think anyone is disputing that this is a shitty situation that could have been handled better, but I also don't think the "reactionary rage" is where people say it is. I'm not furious at all; that's what baffles me, is how people read fury into this side (I hate the term "side" in this context but whatever) of the discussion.

there's just no point to this "fight the real enemy" shit. Sympathetic narrative or not, someone took 15k and wouldn't tell anyone - even the people who were working on the project - where it went. We only found out AFTER people got mean, which sucks, but makes it a weird time to start calling out the meanies. Daphne's said what she's going to do to fix the issue, no one appears to have a problem with it, so this "well i'd still like to vent (even though i'm not personally aggrieved)" vs "well you know who's WORSE?" debate is just hot air. but hey what's a discussion between critics without that.

I'm just glad my long-delayed Kickstarted book didn't have a year in the title. Of course, I raised less money. Also, I didn't give other cranky writers hope of being awarded with prestige for their writing upon completion of my project, which seems like the comically obvious subtext of this particular outcry.

@ sean, speaking from personal experience, the people I know who've received a grant to "make a thing", and that thing is not made, and the money needs to be returned, that money was spent 100% on expenses and rentals and labour, not spent on Netflix. I guess it makes sense that punters would assume that you automatically get a lobster dinner upon receiving a grant but that has not at all been my experience.

― ship who you wanna ship (flamboyant goon tie included), Friday, August 23, 2013 12:52 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

in the less creative more "government grants for something something energy something something security" research world, i'm told that some people are fond of expensing as much in the way of meals and travel as they can.

Katherine, a simple response to any of the folks who politely inquired over the last year long before the Vice article might have indicated good faith, but she never did