I'm glad you brought that up- the labor dispute angle. The inherent irony all along to me is that people will support the Occupy Wall Street movement, and yet seem to give someone a pass who, if she owned a bank, would have also been vilified. More importantly, labor disputes from days of yore used to be between say, factory owners and disgruntled employees. It's weird when the same practice happens between musicians. Or so I used to think.
What I mean to say isn't that she is part of the 1%, but that there is a dividing line created by ego. That of the "me me me," rock star who deserves not only the credit and accolades but the cash, and on the other hand "those kind loving hearted people who, god bless 'em, volunteered their time to help our l'il old me, that i'm gong to help out in this economy," are being exploited.
That's great she's decided to help them out, but it also smacks as suggesting she's only doing it because there was a lot of pressure from Very Important People, or worse, that the economy sucks and not because she believes the people behind her should be paid on a regular basis.
Again though, the whole time this argument has never been about us vs them or rich vs poor or success vs non successful. It's been about doing what's right. Period. And we believe if you're on stage, you should get paid. Perhaps it's in shooting commercials with SAG and AFTRA. Where even someone on camera in a non-speaking role gets a cut of the pie. But we think it's right.
And the constant argument over the past week was "they knew they wouldn't make money, she never said they would," and our constant push back was always "and why is that right? and why shouldn't she have offered to pay?" Replace her with a sweat shop for a second. can you imagine someone saying "they knew they wouldn't make a lot of money working at foxconn, or for Nike; it was their choice they didn't have to. The truth is, they do have to. In the latter because working in a factory is a better alternative to starving, and in the former, because making music is something they want to make a living doing.
If a musician genuinely wants to work for free, they can. And no one is suggesting they be forced to take money. Even that argument is a joke because when in the history of music has a musician been forced to take money? It just shows how bereft "freehadists" are in their arguments. But hey-- If being a supporter of musicians rights makes us bad here at adland, we're okay with that.
Thanks for your comments; they are much appreciated.
A lot of musicians champion the Occupy Wall Street people, because they're activists. We complain that someone with money to pay musicians should pay them. And we get called 'activists,' in a negative sense.
But one opinion I am tired of hearing is the opinion stating "it's THEIR choice to work for free." One commenter on Amanda Palmer's latest post erroneously bemoaned the good old days of the original Woodtsock that brought the music to the people for free. But guess what? The musicians were PAID. INcluding the backing musicians! Check it out. And before you say anything about the money, remember, this is 1969 money. Which when you adjust for inflation, is a TON.
Jimi Hendrix (and his jammin’ buddies) – $18,000
Blood, Sweat and Tears – $15,000
Joan Baez, Creedence Clearwater Revival – $10,000
Janis Joplin, Jefferson Airplane – $7,500
Sly & the Family Stone – $7,000
Canned Heat – $6,500
The Who – $6,250
Richie Havens – $6,000
Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, Arlo Guthrie – $5,000
Ravi Shankar – $4,500
Johnny Winter – $3,750
Ten Years After – $3,250
Grateful Dead, Country Joe & the Fish – $2,500
And the list goes all the way down to the band Quill, which earned union scale: $375. You can take a look and wonder why someone like Canned Heat could command more than some of the others below them on the list; well, they had a couple of Top 20 singles in 1969, while CSNY at that time had yet to release its first album.
Want more proof? Then read, and I mean READ this article.
@Kendall Thanks, I have now seen the light. If I follow your line of thinking, then why should we NOT pay underaged kids in Thailand pennies to make our sneakers until we decide they're the right ones to hire for a dollar a day instead?
In the meantime, until we find the right underage kid, we can still choose from a whole bevy of them and everyone gets 'exposure.' Yeah that sounds like a great plan.
Although it's maybe just a wee bit lopsided when you're the only one who is holding the purse...
People aren't mad that amanda palmer raised a lot of money to make her album. We never said this was so. The New York Times never said this was so. Steve Albini never said this was so. The other professional musicians never said this was so. And a musician's union never said this was so either.
No one gives a shit Amanda Palmer raised over a million dollars for her album. What people are upset about, dear "it's me," Adland included, is that it's kind of a slap in the face when Amanda Palmer raises over a million dollars to create music, and does a victory lap over it, only to turn around and stiff musicians who are backing her on a tour where she will no doubt make money by selling merchandise, playing live every night, not to mention save a lot of money in case you didn't read it the first time, by NOT PAYING her backing musicians.
Do you really honestly think it's okay to go out on tour and make all the money on tour, and not pay the people who are playing your music? Sorry but I don't. And neither does the New York Times, Steve Albini. Other professional musicians. And a musicians union.
I keep referencing these people because we linked to them, so you could get a better understanding of where we're coming from and where everyone else is coming from. We're not 'spreading disinformation.' We're reporting facts. Perhaps you haven't bothered to read further. Hopefully you will, because you are clearly missing it.
If someone wants to work for free, then that's their business. I wonder, while you were a roadie for an orchestra, did you ask for compensation or were you doing it just for laughs? If you asked for compensation, should we assume you are a bad person?
I'll go with no on that one. In this incredibly horrible economy, especially, you should get paid for your work.
By the way I don't know why you want to differentiate between someone who gets up on stage for the first time and a seasoned musician. Hell even wedding bands get paid.
If you bother to read the entire article it is making a larger point about our society here at ADLAND too, and this purveying notion of 'having laughs, exposure, etc,' is something to hide behind because it is still exploitive any way you cut it. You said so yourself. It costs money to put on a show. Someone who doesn't want to pay the money and ask people to play music, and cook for free etc, is lame.
So yeah you're right. Everyone that is volunteering to work for free knows they are working for free. But...they didn't actually have a choice, did they? It's either, do it for free, or don't do it. So it's a non-choice. you say good for them for working for the experience, then maybe you should forgo your roadie paycheck to see what that experience gets you.
And finally-- let me clarify-- since you might have missed this point in the article: It isn't just "the internet" having a hissy fit as you say. It's musicians. Engineers. A musicians union. You know-- people who could jump on stage for free and are saying "fuck you." They're the ones bringing the petition.
It isn't class warfare. It's called decency.
There are currently 0 users online.
Adland® is a commercial-laden heaven and hell for advertising addicts around the world.
This advertising publication was founded in 1996, built on beer and bravery, Adland® now boasts the largest super bowl commercials collection in the world.
Adland® survives on your donations alone. You can help us out by buying us a Ko-Fi. Adland® works best in Brave browser
