playing for free - amanda palmer - are you serious?

NUTHA JASON

Senior Administrator
http://www.prefixmag.com/news/amanda-palmer-cant-afford-to-pay-her-backup-band/69017/

i will gig for free if there is a real return on my time investment. for example, if performing for free will get me loads of paying gigs later or the gig is filmed and i get the footage. but amanda is cycling through musicians. what cred or advantage can any one of them gain by saying 'i ''toured'' with amanda palmer?'. both she and the musicians who are flocking to her should be ashamed. i bet you she hasn't skimped on clothing or props in the budget. i can understand saving accomodation and bus money - but c'mon - pay the locals for their time at least - scrooge!
 
I'm reminded of this:

playforfree.jpg
 
lol and this one:
A guy calls the musicians' guild to get a quote on a 6 piece band for a wedding. The rep says "Off the top of my head, about $2000". He says, "WHAT? FOR MUSIC?. "The rep responds " I'll tell you what. Call the plumbers' union & ask for six plumbers to work from 6 to midnight on a Saturday night. Whatever they charge you, we'll work for half."
 
I will play for free anytime.
I just need $500 to move the bands equipment and $100 to pay the sound guy. :)
 
There's an old saying........."you pay peanuts, you get monkeys"

Across all spectrums of life, I've found it to be true more often than it is not. What does it tell us about paying nada, I wonder!?!?
 
Well, a quick read of the story reveals one important thing: she's extending the invitation to join her onstage to her fans who happen to play, and not to the professional music community. It's not a band, and doesn't involve traveling or any commitment beyond one show. And while the concept of exploitation is there, the payoff for the fan is that they get to appear with an artist they like. So, they're happy, don't feel used, get to meet and take pictures with the artist, and probably get fed as well.

From her point of view, carrying those players on the tour is costly. People don't think about it, but there's more to carrying extra players than just their salaries. There's extra per diems, extra hotels, and expanded transportation accommodations for those people.

I'm not defending her, but I understand what's involved carrying permanent personnel vs using local people. Most bands have a wise mix of both (I'm referring to the crew in this instance, but it extends to other personnel and in some cases, performers.) In terms of her using fans who play instruments, I don't see how that hurts anyone who's willing. Unfortunately, it just sounds cheap in the end. But if it was your $35k, and involved a part of the performance that could be satisfactorily covered by different local fans instead of hired players, you'd understand this move.

Bermuda
 
Last edited:
HOLD ON A MINUTE

This isn't a band thing, it is Punk Theatre, which sheds a different light on it.
If she was someone like Lady Gagga turning up without a band asking Fred to strum his Strat for free then I would question it, but for a Punk Theatre I can see it adding value myself.
 
BTW, as a one-time deal, I'd play with a favorite artist for free!

Bermuda
 
From her point of view, carrying those players on the tour is costly. People don't think about it, but there's more to carrying extra players than just their salaries. There's extra per diems, extra hotels, and expanded transportation accommodations for those people.
i get that john, but it creates a precedant and a slippery slope.

and yes. i understand not wanting to carry personell but at least pay the locals for their time. beer and hugs is insulting.

j
 
BTW, as a one-time deal, I'd play with a favorite artist for free!

Bermuda
i would also play for a favourite, if it was just me and the kudos were there to help me further my career. if i was just part of a never ending chain of non paid session guys - there would be little in it for my career.

unless - the artist was incredibly fun to play with and all my family could come to the show for free.
 
I hate cheap people. I hate users. Cheap people suck and make me hope they have more difficulty than the money they save.

Cheap people suck. I would never support anyone with that attitude, I'd go out of my way to make things difficult for them, because they deserve it. Anyone who puts money in front of people are a form of a scumbag in my opinion, Amanda is a scumbag cheap user and I hope she contracts a bad disease and suffers. I hope she doesn't reproduce and I would publicly dress her down for using her clout to save money. I hope her shows get boycotted, but her idea will likey take off and things will get even worse. Thanks a lot Amanda. Human maggot.
 
i get that john, but it creates a precedant and a slippery slope.

and yes. i understand not wanting to carry personell but at least pay the locals for their time. beer and hugs is insulting.

j

I think playing for free as amatures,and semi-pro is becoming the rule,rather than the exception.Now a professional established singer song writer wants her back up band to do it for free?On a national tour?

That can indeed become a dangerous precedent.If she could somehow manage that,then why wouldn't more "artists" doing the same thing?

Sorry,I also agree that it's insulting to play for beer and hugs.If the "artist" gets paid,then so do I.My time and talent have value too.

Steve B
 
Frankly, i have no idea who Amanda Palmer is. Nor do I care, reading the previous posts. But I make it a point to tell all whom I know who are having a wedding reception NOT to hire a DJ and go with live music instead. Personally, I think it's outrageous to pay a person $400 to punch a few buttons on a laptop for a couple of hours as opposed to maybe a few hundred dollars more for a live band. Just my opinion.
 
well said steve!

playing for free because its fun not only undermines the value, it basically states if you enjoy what you do, you shouldn't get paid. I think many people, not just artists, would fall under this category.

should we only get paid if we hate our jobs?

giving people a chance to play for a big artist is not recompense. should we only get paid if we've already been made? do undiscovered artists have to bear even more cost while waiting for their dreams to come true? it is heart breaking enough to practice like crazy and take risks and hope that it pasy off one day but know it probably won't. if we add this new pressure to the equation more people won't even bother. the world would be the poorer.
these musicians should at least be payed union standard rates for their stage time. shame amanda!

j
 
i get that john, but it creates a precedant and a slippery slope.

and yes. i understand not wanting to carry personell but at least pay the locals for their time. beer and hugs is insulting.

j

That's the thing, it's not a precedent that affects us as pros, or probably anyone we know. Palmer's behavior is more conceptually outrageous than it is in reality. No drummers, guitarists, keyboardists, vocalists, crew personnel, or professional players are being harmed or denied work, at least not from what I can determine from the article.

You have to understand the fans' perspective, it's a cool opportunity for them. Not an opportunity as players who might garner future work for their effort.... it's a safe bet that they won't. But as fans, they get to be close to the artist they like. Are these fans professional players? Not likely. But if one or two are, and they think it's cool to give an afternoon and evening to the artist, then that's their business, not ours. It's not as if Palmer is assembling a free band every night. It's horn and string players.

If this were being asked of pros who are an essential part of the performance, such as the band... then it's time to put out foot down. I sorta get why people are riled up, but this doesn't involve musicians. It's about fans who can play a horn or stringed instrument (I doubt that means a guitar, bass or piano in this case.)

Or, let's put it this way. Suppose you were in a touring band, and fans or contest winners or whatever in each city got to be part of the show somehow. Not as part of the band, but in some other manner of performance. And then let's say that the outraged permanent tour personnel thought this was unfair and insisted that the artist pay for those people in each town, or even bring people on the road as salaried employees. And then because if the extra expense, the band's salaries had to be adjusted. Is that better? Would you still insist on that arrangement in the name of fairness? Or should the artist just eat that, and make it up in record sales?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....I said record sales..... I kill me!

Or maybe, label support will cover those extra salaries.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA....I'll be here all week!!

Bermuda
 
I think playing for free as amatures,and semi-pro is becoming the rule,rather than the exception.Now a professional established singer song writer wants her back up band to do it for free?On a national tour?

No no no.... see, this is where the problem lies. This is NOT a backup band being asked to work for free, and the horn and string players are not being asked to go on tour. It's one night for her fans who happen to play a horn or stringed instrument and think it would be cool to be seen onstage with her. At least that's the info presented in the article.

If she's getting drummers and guitar players etc to play for free on a national tour, I'd take a very different stance on this. But I can't find that in the article. Where is everyone getting this notion??

Bermuda
 
Well, you get what you pay for. I hope that it bites her in the bottom. I hope that she gets the worst horn players imaginable and I hope they screw up her show. Maybe I'll pretend I'm a fan and get up there and play a horn. Yea that will teach her.

Just more devaluing of musicians. Now it's originating from musicians, that's the part that makes me the maddest.
 
playing for free because its fun not only undermines the value... these musicians should at least be payed union standard rates for their stage time.

I guess that's the real question - what constitutes a musician? Is anyone capable of making musical sounds on an instrument considered a musician? Or does one have to desire some furtherment of their playing to be considered a musician? And at what point does either possess value?

As a pro, I get compensated for my work. Such a one-night-for-free arrangement would normally not appeal to me (although I could name many exceptions!) But let's say that I just toyed on an instrument, for fun, and don't do any paying gigs. If I was offered a spot in a low-budget gig as non-essential stage dressing that gets to make some musical sounds, should I become indignant and demand money?

Based on the article, that's all that's going on here. Pros aren't being asked to devalue themselves or other pros.

Sorry, but I have a unique knowledge of why this stuff is done. Sometimes that's a curse. But if we're going to share knowledge, all perspectives need to be brought up.

Bermuda
 
Well, you get what you pay for. I hope that it bites her in the bottom. I hope that she gets the worst horn players imaginable and I hope they screw up her show.

Well, that's what it would take. But the result wouldn't be hiring pros... it would be putting those parts on a track, or eliminating them altogether.

Bermuda
 
Back
Top