I just don't know why the onus on selling the posters has to be put on the artist, who may not even have a webstore. Couldn't Pearl Jam pay a nominal amount for the commissioned artwork, (like $500?), and then **also** sell those 100 "exclusive" versions of the poster for like $100 each (or whatever the artist wants them to charge) at the show or at pearljam.com where 100 percent of the money goes to the artist? This way the artists is guaranteed some money, and if its a desirable design they easily also get $10k. Seems like win win for all.
In this case the artist does have a webstore, and regardless, why should the band change the business model now when it's clearly one that has been working for them and plenty of other artists over the years? Maybe not 100% of artists are happy with it, but most seem to appreciate the opportunity (or at least the complaints have been few & far between from what I've seen).
As someone else mentioned, it's not as if there was a bait & switch at play. No one was tricked or deceived.
Are you a lawyer for Ticketmaster? Just because artists suck it up and go along with a policy does not mean that it is actually fair. This seems like it could be easily remedied without much loss to a big band like Pearl Jam. If we were talking about some punk band rehearsing in a garage then I could understand this policy.
Weird take.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume the artists who keep coming back to work for Pearl Jam year in and year out have a better understanding of the policy than you do, and must be pretty happy with the arrangement if they keep coming back, but what do I know?
I don't think you need to be the artist or some genius to figure out the policy. It's pretty clear: the artist designs poster and only gets paid in posters of their own work that they must sell and ship on their own time. As an artist, my opinion is that is really uncool. These poster artists are in a tricky and vulnerable position, and the people hiring them know it. My guess is that if you talked to many of these artists off record, they would tell you the same. It was brave of this artist to tell her story, but the fact is that now she will probably face retribution which sucks. Artists should be paid.
I agree, artists should be paid; I also maintain that clearly this model works for the people who keep taking on the work. Why on earth would artists like Ames Bros & Brad Klausen & Emek & Steve Thomas et al keep 'sucking it up' if it didn't?
Johnson had her reservations, as would I - the prospect of having to export all those posters from NZ isn't appealing, but that's the gig. Take it or don't. She hesitated and Tsurt moved on. That's life.
TSurt didn’t move on because she hesitated. He moved on because she called their payment structure upside down and that she was surprised Pearl Jam would do that. Who would enter into business with someone after they have attacked how you operate? It usually doesn’t get better from there. The proof that TSurt did the right thing was that she selectively excluded the emails that made it logical for TSurt to rescind.
People that spend their time and efforts organizing The Home Shows, building skateparks, volunteering for the homeless, etc… probably aren’t out to stiff another artist. Sure some, some business comes into it, but end of the day the artists are getting paid.
Yeah. If she didn't like the payment method, she could have just declined and moved on.
Blasting Tsurt and Pearl Jam online like that is just a real bad look, in my opinion. Gives off some real "look at me!" vibes.
If she wants to call out their payment method, that is fine. Can understand she thinks they could be taking advantage of the little guy.
What I think makes her look bad is that she also tried to make them look like they were jerks and disrespectful by leaving out the emails in her Instagram post.
0
on2legs
Standing in the Jersey rain… Posts: 14,928
She’s bent they pulled the offer and now she’s trying to drag Pearl Jam in a social media tantrum.
1996: Randall's Island 2 1998: East Rutherford | MSG 1 & 2 2000: Cincinnati | Columbus | Jones Beach 1, 2, & 3 | Boston 1 | Camden 1 & 2 2003: Philadelphia | Uniondale | MSG 1 & 2 | Holmdel 2005: Atlantic City 1 2006: Camden 1 | East Rutherford 1 & 2 2008: Camden 1 & 2 | MSG 1 & 2 | Newark (EV) 2009: Philadelphia 1, 2 & 4 2010: Newark | MSG 1 & 2 2011: Toronto 1 2013: Wrigley Field | Brooklyn 2 | Philadelphia 1 & 2 | Baltimore 2015: Central Park 2016: Philadelphia 1 & 2 | MSG 1 & 2 | Fenway Park 2 | MSG (TOTD) 2017: Brooklyn (RnR HOF) 2020: MSG | Asbury Park2021: Asbury Park 2022: MSG | Camden | Nashville 2024: MSG 1 & 2 (#50) | Philadelphia 1 & 2 | Baltimore
I find it kind of puzzling that the majority of people here are okay with an artist only getting paid in numbered copies of posters that they can then sell for whatever they want to charge. Yet flippers who buy PJ records to resell for whatever price they want are pretty much the devil. Artists should be compensated. Merely giving them the opportunity to sell a few posters at exorbitant (ahem, market value) prices shouldn't really qualify.
I get where you’re coming from, but in the art world (both visual art like posters, etc and even music), having to wait to get paid for your work is the norm. At times you can be commissioned for a project and get at least some payment in advance or have a position as a resident artist somewhere or something like that. But for the most part, artists create art and then try to sell it. So this model isn’t all that out of the ordinary for artist compensation.
I just don't know why the onus on selling the posters has to be put on the artist, who may not even have a webstore. Couldn't Pearl Jam pay a nominal amount for the commissioned artwork, (like $500?), and then **also** sell those 100 "exclusive" versions of the poster for like $100 each (or whatever the artist wants them to charge) at the show or at pearljam.com where 100 percent of the money goes to the artist? This way the artists is guaranteed some money, and if its a desirable design they easily also get $10k. Seems like win win for all.
In this case the artist does have a webstore, and regardless, why should the band change the business model now when it's clearly one that has been working for them and plenty of other artists over the years? Maybe not 100% of artists are happy with it, but most seem to appreciate the opportunity (or at least the complaints have been few & far between from what I've seen).
As someone else mentioned, it's not as if there was a bait & switch at play. No one was tricked or deceived.
Are you a lawyer for Ticketmaster? Just because artists suck it up and go along with a policy does not mean that it is actually fair. This seems like it could be easily remedied without much loss to a big band like Pearl Jam. If we were talking about some punk band rehearsing in a garage then I could understand this policy.
Weird take.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume the artists who keep coming back to work for Pearl Jam year in and year out have a better understanding of the policy than you do, and must be pretty happy with the arrangement if they keep coming back, but what do I know?
I don't think you need to be the artist or some genius to figure out the policy. It's pretty clear: the artist designs poster and only gets paid in posters of their own work that they must sell and ship on their own time. As an artist, my opinion is that is really uncool. These poster artists are in a tricky and vulnerable position, and the people hiring them know it. My guess is that if you talked to many of these artists off record, they would tell you the same. It was brave of this artist to tell her story, but the fact is that now she will probably face retribution which sucks. Artists should be paid.
I agree, artists should be paid; I also maintain that clearly this model works for the people who keep taking on the work. Why on earth would artists like Ames Bros & Brad Klausen & Emek & Steve Thomas et al keep 'sucking it up' if it didn't?
Johnson had her reservations, as would I - the prospect of having to export all those posters from NZ isn't appealing, but that's the gig. Take it or don't. She hesitated and Tsurt moved on. That's life.
Ames keeps coming back because they have a sweetheart deal and get like 300 APs, 150 of which are variants that they sell for 2-3 times the cost of a standard AP. Smacks of nepotism. It says a lot that most of the artists accepting the standard 100 AP deal are lesser known or wouldn't be considered top tier gig print artists. When's the last time Emek or Sperry did a PJ print? Look at all the prints that Emek did in 2023. Why no PJ? We may never see it again.
I just don't know why the onus on selling the posters has to be put on the artist, who may not even have a webstore. Couldn't Pearl Jam pay a nominal amount for the commissioned artwork, (like $500?), and then **also** sell those 100 "exclusive" versions of the poster for like $100 each (or whatever the artist wants them to charge) at the show or at pearljam.com where 100 percent of the money goes to the artist? This way the artists is guaranteed some money, and if its a desirable design they easily also get $10k. Seems like win win for all.
In this case the artist does have a webstore, and regardless, why should the band change the business model now when it's clearly one that has been working for them and plenty of other artists over the years? Maybe not 100% of artists are happy with it, but most seem to appreciate the opportunity (or at least the complaints have been few & far between from what I've seen).
As someone else mentioned, it's not as if there was a bait & switch at play. No one was tricked or deceived.
Are you a lawyer for Ticketmaster? Just because artists suck it up and go along with a policy does not mean that it is actually fair. This seems like it could be easily remedied without much loss to a big band like Pearl Jam. If we were talking about some punk band rehearsing in a garage then I could understand this policy.
Weird take.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume the artists who keep coming back to work for Pearl Jam year in and year out have a better understanding of the policy than you do, and must be pretty happy with the arrangement if they keep coming back, but what do I know?
I don't think you need to be the artist or some genius to figure out the policy. It's pretty clear: the artist designs poster and only gets paid in posters of their own work that they must sell and ship on their own time. As an artist, my opinion is that is really uncool. These poster artists are in a tricky and vulnerable position, and the people hiring them know it. My guess is that if you talked to many of these artists off record, they would tell you the same. It was brave of this artist to tell her story, but the fact is that now she will probably face retribution which sucks. Artists should be paid.
I agree, artists should be paid; I also maintain that clearly this model works for the people who keep taking on the work. Why on earth would artists like Ames Bros & Brad Klausen & Emek & Steve Thomas et al keep 'sucking it up' if it didn't?
Johnson had her reservations, as would I - the prospect of having to export all those posters from NZ isn't appealing, but that's the gig. Take it or don't. She hesitated and Tsurt moved on. That's life.
Ames keeps coming back because they have a sweetheart deal and get like 300 APs, 150 of which are variants that they sell for 2-3 times the cost of a standard AP. Smacks of nepotism. It says a lot that most of the artists accepting the standard 100 AP deal are lesser known or wouldn't be considered top tier gig print artists. When's the last time Emek or Sperry did a PJ print? Look at all the prints that Emek did in 2023. Why no PJ? We may never see it again.
Why didn't Klausen do any Pearl Jam prints in 2023? Or Mumford? Are they taking a stand against an exploitative business model or were they not given the opportunity? I'm sure don't know, but with only 9 Pearl Jam shows, it's not as if there were all that many opportunities to be had.
IDK about Sperry, but i think the last time Emek did a print for PJ was 2018. Again, it's not as if PJ has been touring all that much over the last 5 years, but you could be on to something there...There is however, no shortage of concert posters in Emek's 2023 portfolio... do those other bands compensate the artists w/ a flat rate? I'm under the impression the AP compensation is the norm, but maybe that's not the case... if Pearl Jam (and other select bands) were the exception, I can't help but feel like more people would be grumbling about it, at least anonymously, especially w/ the way the concert posters have blown up over the last 20+ years,.
Your point about Ames brothers is a good one. Maybe it's nepotism, or maybe it's in consideration of a 25 year long relationship, maybe it's a little bit of both (or neither, and something we're not tuned in to... we really don't know)... but I'm curious about your point of them using lesser known artists... are you suggesting they're exploiting them because they're not in a position where they can refuse? It's possible, sure... it doesn't fit what I think to be their MO... I can't really see Jeff or Mike having a "f 'em, they're lucky just to have the opportunity" mentality about it, or any of the other guys really, but IDK... I don't know them personally, so I can't say.
There's been at least a few documentaries about the concert poster industry / phenomenon made over the last 10+ years. I've only seen one, but I know there's more out there... do any touch on the shady / exploitative way of how some bands compensate artists?
It's a smart business approach by the band. Asking the artist to sell AP´s, the artist will put more work into the piece to make sure it sells.
It will generate better art for the band. Just speculating here..
Yo dude, well its been quite a long time since we got a really good poster....soooooo................LOL
But regardless those AP's have all sold so the artists have been compensated pretty well. But then I wonder how long a piece like a Pitts 13 takes to create? I mean in hours. I wonder exactly how profitable it can be which will depend on how time intensive the process is.
I just don't know why the onus on selling the posters has to be put on the artist, who may not even have a webstore. Couldn't Pearl Jam pay a nominal amount for the commissioned artwork, (like $500?), and then **also** sell those 100 "exclusive" versions of the poster for like $100 each (or whatever the artist wants them to charge) at the show or at pearljam.com where 100 percent of the money goes to the artist? This way the artists is guaranteed some money, and if its a desirable design they easily also get $10k. Seems like win win for all.
In this case the artist does have a webstore, and regardless, why should the band change the business model now when it's clearly one that has been working for them and plenty of other artists over the years? Maybe not 100% of artists are happy with it, but most seem to appreciate the opportunity (or at least the complaints have been few & far between from what I've seen).
As someone else mentioned, it's not as if there was a bait & switch at play. No one was tricked or deceived.
Are you a lawyer for Ticketmaster? Just because artists suck it up and go along with a policy does not mean that it is actually fair. This seems like it could be easily remedied without much loss to a big band like Pearl Jam. If we were talking about some punk band rehearsing in a garage then I could understand this policy.
Weird take.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume the artists who keep coming back to work for Pearl Jam year in and year out have a better understanding of the policy than you do, and must be pretty happy with the arrangement if they keep coming back, but what do I know?
I don't think you need to be the artist or some genius to figure out the policy. It's pretty clear: the artist designs poster and only gets paid in posters of their own work that they must sell and ship on their own time. As an artist, my opinion is that is really uncool. These poster artists are in a tricky and vulnerable position, and the people hiring them know it. My guess is that if you talked to many of these artists off record, they would tell you the same. It was brave of this artist to tell her story, but the fact is that now she will probably face retribution which sucks. Artists should be paid.
I agree, artists should be paid; I also maintain that clearly this model works for the people who keep taking on the work. Why on earth would artists like Ames Bros & Brad Klausen & Emek & Steve Thomas et al keep 'sucking it up' if it didn't?
Johnson had her reservations, as would I - the prospect of having to export all those posters from NZ isn't appealing, but that's the gig. Take it or don't. She hesitated and Tsurt moved on. That's life.
TSurt didn’t move on because she hesitated. He moved on because she called their payment structure upside down and that she was surprised Pearl Jam would do that. Who would enter into business with someone after they have attacked how you operate? It usually doesn’t get better from there. The proof that TSurt did the right thing was that she selectively excluded the emails that made it logical for TSurt to rescind.
People that spend their time and efforts organizing The Home Shows, building skateparks, volunteering for the homeless, etc… probably aren’t out to stiff another artist. Sure some, some business comes into it, but end of the day the artists are getting paid.
Pretty weak definition of "attack". Both sides are blowing this out of proportion. This model works for many artists, but that doesn't mean it's not "paying with exposure". TSurt is in the stronger position, knowing that there are plenty of artists out there who would love to do a PJ poster. They don't have to wait for a new-to-the-community artist to "look into" the arrangement. They probably found someone else later that day. That's their prerogative, because of the business they've built.
Artists shouldn't be expected to just sit back and accept any offer that comes their way, just because it has "worked for many other artists". End of the day, the artists aren't "getting paid", they're getting the potential of getting paid. It's not the same thing. Again, it works for some artists, but it shouldn't have to work for all. Yeah, they can make a couple of grand on an AP sale, but that comes with other headaches and overhead. Who could blame artists for preferring to get paid upfront.
Oh no, she dared to call it "upside down".
It does make me wonder why TSurt doesn't want to pay up front. Is it because there is a small, but non-zero, possibility that they wouldn't recoup that money? If they have that concern, why wouldn't the artists?
"I'm a lucky man, to count on both hands the [shows I've done]. Some folks just have one, others they got none..."
I just don't know why the onus on selling the posters has to be put on the artist, who may not even have a webstore. Couldn't Pearl Jam pay a nominal amount for the commissioned artwork, (like $500?), and then **also** sell those 100 "exclusive" versions of the poster for like $100 each (or whatever the artist wants them to charge) at the show or at pearljam.com where 100 percent of the money goes to the artist? This way the artists is guaranteed some money, and if its a desirable design they easily also get $10k. Seems like win win for all.
In this case the artist does have a webstore, and regardless, why should the band change the business model now when it's clearly one that has been working for them and plenty of other artists over the years? Maybe not 100% of artists are happy with it, but most seem to appreciate the opportunity (or at least the complaints have been few & far between from what I've seen).
As someone else mentioned, it's not as if there was a bait & switch at play. No one was tricked or deceived.
Are you a lawyer for Ticketmaster? Just because artists suck it up and go along with a policy does not mean that it is actually fair. This seems like it could be easily remedied without much loss to a big band like Pearl Jam. If we were talking about some punk band rehearsing in a garage then I could understand this policy.
Weird take.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume the artists who keep coming back to work for Pearl Jam year in and year out have a better understanding of the policy than you do, and must be pretty happy with the arrangement if they keep coming back, but what do I know?
I don't think you need to be the artist or some genius to figure out the policy. It's pretty clear: the artist designs poster and only gets paid in posters of their own work that they must sell and ship on their own time. As an artist, my opinion is that is really uncool. These poster artists are in a tricky and vulnerable position, and the people hiring them know it. My guess is that if you talked to many of these artists off record, they would tell you the same. It was brave of this artist to tell her story, but the fact is that now she will probably face retribution which sucks. Artists should be paid.
I agree, artists should be paid; I also maintain that clearly this model works for the people who keep taking on the work. Why on earth would artists like Ames Bros & Brad Klausen & Emek & Steve Thomas et al keep 'sucking it up' if it didn't?
Johnson had her reservations, as would I - the prospect of having to export all those posters from NZ isn't appealing, but that's the gig. Take it or don't. She hesitated and Tsurt moved on. That's life.
Ames keeps coming back because they have a sweetheart deal and get like 300 APs, 150 of which are variants that they sell for 2-3 times the cost of a standard AP. Smacks of nepotism. It says a lot that most of the artists accepting the standard 100 AP deal are lesser known or wouldn't be considered top tier gig print artists. When's the last time Emek or Sperry did a PJ print? Look at all the prints that Emek did in 2023. Why no PJ? We may never see it again.
Why didn't Klausen do any Pearl Jam prints in 2023? Or Mumford? Are they taking a stand against an exploitative business model or were they not given the opportunity? I'm sure don't know, but with only 9 Pearl Jam shows, it's not as if there were all that many opportunities to be had.
IDK about Sperry, but i think the last time Emek did a print for PJ was 2018. Again, it's not as if PJ has been touring all that much over the last 5 years, but you could be on to something there...There is however, no shortage of concert posters in Emek's 2023 portfolio... do those other bands compensate the artists w/ a flat rate? I'm under the impression the AP compensation is the norm, but maybe that's not the case... if Pearl Jam (and other select bands) were the exception, I can't help but feel like more people would be grumbling about it, at least anonymously, especially w/ the way the concert posters have blown up over the last 20+ years,.
Your point about Ames brothers is a good one. Maybe it's nepotism, or maybe it's in consideration of a 25 year long relationship, maybe it's a little bit of both (or neither, and something we're not tuned in to... we really don't know)... but I'm curious about your point of them using lesser known artists... are you suggesting they're exploiting them because they're not in a position where they can refuse? It's possible, sure... it doesn't fit what I think to be their MO... I can't really see Jeff or Mike having a "f 'em, they're lucky just to have the opportunity" mentality about it, or any of the other guys really, but IDK... I don't know them personally, so I can't say.
There's been at least a few documentaries about the concert poster industry / phenomenon made over the last 10+ years. I've only seen one, but I know there's more out there... do any touch on the shady / exploitative way of how some bands compensate artists?
I wouldn't call it exploiting, Any artist who thinks it's a shitty deal can pass. I look at it more as market based. Like anything else, the most talented people in a given field can command higher compensation. I see a definite trend for the recent PJ shows that the artists who are willing to take this deal may not be in as much demand. That's not to say it's not a fair deal for them given the exposure and other benefits people have mentioned. But for someone like Emek, he probably gets a better deal from other bands. Not necessarily a flat fee, but for his QOTSA and Foo Fighters prints for example he has had many many variants that presumably make those gigs more profitable than what he would get from 100 PJ APs. Emek and Sperry got to do variants for PJ in the past (Foil chief, foil mermaid, blue linen leopard) and Munk with the purple moose. Seems like they need to sweeten the deal at times.
It wouldn't shock me if the arrangements vary by artist. It would make sense for someone like EMEK or Sperry to have more leverage than an up-and-comer. I'm sure that factors into the selection process.
Ames is a different animal altogether for all the reasons already outlined. I would expect them to be treated uniquely.
Do you guys think TSurt was on a tight deadline so had to make a call? Or do you think they jumped the gun in canning it? I'm not sure how far they'd need a final submission from an article in advance of a gig. Brad Klausen definitely seems the best qualified to answer this stuff. Seems to me like both sides can be right and also ignorant of the other's perspective. Might be a great deal in comparison to the way she's used to doing so, but having such a different business model has obviously taken her aback and communication/breakdowns could have been better. It's a shame she won't get the chance to do it. But yeah again I'm just trying to be philosophical and think they're reaching out to NZ artists for NZ concerts. Roll on November (allegedly).
Stars are suns to other people.
Wellington 1998 London 2007 Brisbane 2009 Stockholm 2012
Amsterdam 1 & 2 2014 EV Dublin 2017 Milan 2018 Padova 2018 Boston 2 2018
I just don't know why the onus on selling the posters has to be put on the artist, who may not even have a webstore. Couldn't Pearl Jam pay a nominal amount for the commissioned artwork, (like $500?), and then **also** sell those 100 "exclusive" versions of the poster for like $100 each (or whatever the artist wants them to charge) at the show or at pearljam.com where 100 percent of the money goes to the artist? This way the artists is guaranteed some money, and if its a desirable design they easily also get $10k. Seems like win win for all.
In this case the artist does have a webstore, and regardless, why should the band change the business model now when it's clearly one that has been working for them and plenty of other artists over the years? Maybe not 100% of artists are happy with it, but most seem to appreciate the opportunity (or at least the complaints have been few & far between from what I've seen).
As someone else mentioned, it's not as if there was a bait & switch at play. No one was tricked or deceived.
Are you a lawyer for Ticketmaster? Just because artists suck it up and go along with a policy does not mean that it is actually fair. This seems like it could be easily remedied without much loss to a big band like Pearl Jam. If we were talking about some punk band rehearsing in a garage then I could understand this policy.
Weird take.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume the artists who keep coming back to work for Pearl Jam year in and year out have a better understanding of the policy than you do, and must be pretty happy with the arrangement if they keep coming back, but what do I know?
I don't think you need to be the artist or some genius to figure out the policy. It's pretty clear: the artist designs poster and only gets paid in posters of their own work that they must sell and ship on their own time. As an artist, my opinion is that is really uncool. These poster artists are in a tricky and vulnerable position, and the people hiring them know it. My guess is that if you talked to many of these artists off record, they would tell you the same. It was brave of this artist to tell her story, but the fact is that now she will probably face retribution which sucks. Artists should be paid.
I agree, artists should be paid; I also maintain that clearly this model works for the people who keep taking on the work. Why on earth would artists like Ames Bros & Brad Klausen & Emek & Steve Thomas et al keep 'sucking it up' if it didn't?
Johnson had her reservations, as would I - the prospect of having to export all those posters from NZ isn't appealing, but that's the gig. Take it or don't. She hesitated and Tsurt moved on. That's life.
TSurt didn’t move on because she hesitated. He moved on because she called their payment structure upside down and that she was surprised Pearl Jam would do that. Who would enter into business with someone after they have attacked how you operate? It usually doesn’t get better from there. The proof that TSurt did the right thing was that she selectively excluded the emails that made it logical for TSurt to rescind.
People that spend their time and efforts organizing The Home Shows, building skateparks, volunteering for the homeless, etc… probably aren’t out to stiff another artist. Sure some, some business comes into it, but end of the day the artists are getting paid.
Yeah. If she didn't like the payment method, she could have just declined and moved on.
Blasting Tsurt and Pearl Jam online like that is just a real bad look, in my opinion. Gives off some real "look at me!" vibes.
Agreed. Get the same vibes from people sharing the story, too.
Virginia Beach 2000; Pittsburgh 2000; Columbus 2003; D.C. 2003; Pittsburgh 2006; Virginia Beach 2008; Cleveland 2010; PJ20 2011; Pittsburgh 2013; Baltimore 2013; Charlottesville 2013; Charlotte 2013; Lincoln 2014; Moline 2014; St. Paul 2014; Greenville 2016; Hampton 2016; Lexington 2016; Wrigley 2016; Prague 2018; Krakow 2018; Berlin 2018; Fenway 2018; Camden 2022; St. Paul 2023; MSG 1 2024
It's a smart business approach by the band. Asking the artist to sell AP´s, the artist will put more work into the piece to make sure it sells.
It will generate better art for the band. Just speculating here..
Yo dude, well its been quite a long time since we got a really good poster....soooooo................LOL
But regardless those AP's have all sold so the artists have been compensated pretty well. But then I wonder how long a piece like a Pitts 13 takes to create? I mean in hours. I wonder exactly how profitable it can be which will depend on how time intensive the process is.
Been too long man! Bought a membership again with the goal of scoring some tickets for the upcoming tour. Hopefully I get to see you along the way!
Yeah, the posters have been more miss than hit lately. Hopefully we get some good ones in 2024.
Meh. This seems to be an acceptable form of compensation, if it weren’t, then they wouldn’t do it.
Could it have been explained better that she could have made a quick $10k plus with s/n APs and then get future opportunities? Yes. Did it have to be? No.
Did he have to say rescinded? No. Was it snarky? Maybe. Was she snarky first? Maybe.
Also, if you still get touchy over auto-correct or typos, then that is on you. Yes, even in “professional” emails. It happens all the time, to all of us, even in publishing and legal documents and things that do get proofread multiple times. Time to accept it and move on.
Reading the original back and forth and not the selected snippets, I was 100% expecting TSurt to rescind the offer. Tone in emails is tough sometimes to get correct, but Jess actually said the way TSurt and PJ approaches it is upside down. She clearly went out of her way to diss them before doing her research. If she said, "that's interesting. I'm not used to that approach. Let me do a bit of research and I'll get back to you in the next few days", then I think she would have the gig if she wanted it.
Still mulling on it. I’ve always been paid for any commercial job I’ve done. Have been happy to have a sliding scale depending on the project and what they can afford… but it’s always been something. So I have to say it seems a little upside down that a band like Pearl Jam would want to pay someone for their services in merch.
But will do a bit of research and see if it’s been financially viable for the other artists. Will be in touch in the New Year!
I agree completely, but perhaps I was treading too lightly in my post as to not get flamed for not siding with the artist.
I just don't know why the onus on selling the posters has to be put on the artist, who may not even have a webstore. Couldn't Pearl Jam pay a nominal amount for the commissioned artwork, (like $500?), and then **also** sell those 100 "exclusive" versions of the poster for like $100 each (or whatever the artist wants them to charge) at the show or at pearljam.com where 100 percent of the money goes to the artist? This way the artists is guaranteed some money, and if its a desirable design they easily also get $10k. Seems like win win for all.
In this case the artist does have a webstore, and regardless, why should the band change the business model now when it's clearly one that has been working for them and plenty of other artists over the years? Maybe not 100% of artists are happy with it, but most seem to appreciate the opportunity (or at least the complaints have been few & far between from what I've seen).
As someone else mentioned, it's not as if there was a bait & switch at play. No one was tricked or deceived.
Are you a lawyer for Ticketmaster? Just because artists suck it up and go along with a policy does not mean that it is actually fair. This seems like it could be easily remedied without much loss to a big band like Pearl Jam. If we were talking about some punk band rehearsing in a garage then I could understand this policy.
Weird take.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume the artists who keep coming back to work for Pearl Jam year in and year out have a better understanding of the policy than you do, and must be pretty happy with the arrangement if they keep coming back, but what do I know?
I don't think you need to be the artist or some genius to figure out the policy. It's pretty clear: the artist designs poster and only gets paid in posters of their own work that they must sell and ship on their own time. As an artist, my opinion is that is really uncool. These poster artists are in a tricky and vulnerable position, and the people hiring them know it. My guess is that if you talked to many of these artists off record, they would tell you the same. It was brave of this artist to tell her story, but the fact is that now she will probably face retribution which sucks. Artists should be paid.
I agree, artists should be paid; I also maintain that clearly this model works for the people who keep taking on the work. Why on earth would artists like Ames Bros & Brad Klausen & Emek & Steve Thomas et al keep 'sucking it up' if it didn't?
Johnson had her reservations, as would I - the prospect of having to export all those posters from NZ isn't appealing, but that's the gig. Take it or don't. She hesitated and Tsurt moved on. That's life.
Ames keeps coming back because they have a sweetheart deal and get like 300 APs, 150 of which are variants that they sell for 2-3 times the cost of a standard AP. Smacks of nepotism. It says a lot that most of the artists accepting the standard 100 AP deal are lesser known or wouldn't be considered top tier gig print artists. When's the last time Emek or Sperry did a PJ print? Look at all the prints that Emek did in 2023. Why no PJ? We may never see it again.
Why didn't Klausen do any Pearl Jam prints in 2023? Or Mumford? Are they taking a stand against an exploitative business model or were they not given the opportunity? I'm sure don't know, but with only 9 Pearl Jam shows, it's not as if there were all that many opportunities to be had.
IDK about Sperry, but i think the last time Emek did a print for PJ was 2018. Again, it's not as if PJ has been touring all that much over the last 5 years, but you could be on to something there...There is however, no shortage of concert posters in Emek's 2023 portfolio... do those other bands compensate the artists w/ a flat rate? I'm under the impression the AP compensation is the norm, but maybe that's not the case... if Pearl Jam (and other select bands) were the exception, I can't help but feel like more people would be grumbling about it, at least anonymously, especially w/ the way the concert posters have blown up over the last 20+ years,.
Your point about Ames brothers is a good one. Maybe it's nepotism, or maybe it's in consideration of a 25 year long relationship, maybe it's a little bit of both (or neither, and something we're not tuned in to... we really don't know)... but I'm curious about your point of them using lesser known artists... are you suggesting they're exploiting them because they're not in a position where they can refuse? It's possible, sure... it doesn't fit what I think to be their MO... I can't really see Jeff or Mike having a "f 'em, they're lucky just to have the opportunity" mentality about it, or any of the other guys really, but IDK... I don't know them personally, so I can't say.
There's been at least a few documentaries about the concert poster industry / phenomenon made over the last 10+ years. I've only seen one, but I know there's more out there... do any touch on the shady / exploitative way of how some bands compensate artists?
I wouldn't call it exploiting, Any artist who thinks it's a shitty deal can pass. I look at it more as market based. Like anything else, the most talented people in a given field can command higher compensation. I see a definite trend for the recent PJ shows that the artists who are willing to take this deal may not be in as much demand. That's not to say it's not a fair deal for them given the exposure and other benefits people have mentioned. But for someone like Emek, he probably gets a better deal from other bands. Not necessarily a flat fee, but for his QOTSA and Foo Fighters prints for example he has had many many variants that presumably make those gigs more profitable than what he would get from 100 PJ APs. Emek and Sperry got to do variants for PJ in the past (Foil chief, foil mermaid, blue linen leopard) and Munk with the purple moose. Seems like they need to sweeten the deal at times.
All great points, and we're in agreement that this is all market based.
As far as long standing relationships and / or more talented artists getting extra consideration or concessions... isn't that how most if not all industries work?
I think that's the overall point here... this is how the industry works. I don't think Pearl Jam approaches this differently than most if not any other band, and the insinuation from the author of that newsletter that this is a problem unique to PJ is unprofessional at best.
Meh. This seems to be an acceptable form of compensation, if it weren’t, then they wouldn’t do it.
Could it have been explained better that she could have made a quick $10k plus with s/n APs and then get future opportunities? Yes. Did it have to be? No.
Did he have to say rescinded? No. Was it snarky? Maybe. Was she snarky first? Maybe.
Also, if you still get touchy over auto-correct or typos, then that is on you. Yes, even in “professional” emails. It happens all the time, to all of us, even in publishing and legal documents and things that do get proofread multiple times. Time to accept it and move on.
Reading the original back and forth and not the selected snippets, I was 100% expecting TSurt to rescind the offer. Tone in emails is tough sometimes to get correct, but Jess actually said the way TSurt and PJ approaches it is upside down. She clearly went out of her way to diss them before doing her research. If she said, "that's interesting. I'm not used to that approach. Let me do a bit of research and I'll get back to you in the next few days", then I think she would have the gig if she wanted it.
Still mulling on it. I’ve always been paid for any commercial job I’ve done. Have been happy to have a sliding scale depending on the project and what they can afford… but it’s always been something. So I have to say it seems a little upside down that a band like Pearl Jam would want to pay someone for their services in merch.
But will do a bit of research and see if it’s been financially viable for the other artists. Will be in touch in the New Year!
I agree completely, but perhaps I was treading too lightly in my post as to not get flamed for not siding with the artist.
Not sure why we have to feel like we need to protect the artist. For every Pearl Jam there are probably 1,000 other musicians who make only enough to pay the rent. We should feel bad for teachers, nurses, first responders who are underpaid. Not artists that know it is a tough way to make money but they want to follow their passion. I would love to follow my passion and sit around and play golf all day. But reality sinks in.
Meh. This seems to be an acceptable form of compensation, if it weren’t, then they wouldn’t do it.
Could it have been explained better that she could have made a quick $10k plus with s/n APs and then get future opportunities? Yes. Did it have to be? No.
Did he have to say rescinded? No. Was it snarky? Maybe. Was she snarky first? Maybe.
Also, if you still get touchy over auto-correct or typos, then that is on you. Yes, even in “professional” emails. It happens all the time, to all of us, even in publishing and legal documents and things that do get proofread multiple times. Time to accept it and move on.
Reading the original back and forth and not the selected snippets, I was 100% expecting TSurt to rescind the offer. Tone in emails is tough sometimes to get correct, but Jess actually said the way TSurt and PJ approaches it is upside down. She clearly went out of her way to diss them before doing her research. If she said, "that's interesting. I'm not used to that approach. Let me do a bit of research and I'll get back to you in the next few days", then I think she would have the gig if she wanted it.
Still mulling on it. I’ve always been paid for any commercial job I’ve done. Have been happy to have a sliding scale depending on the project and what they can afford… but it’s always been something. So I have to say it seems a little upside down that a band like Pearl Jam would want to pay someone for their services in merch.
But will do a bit of research and see if it’s been financially viable for the other artists. Will be in touch in the New Year!
I agree completely, but perhaps I was treading too lightly in my post as to not get flamed for not siding with the artist.
Not sure why we have to feel like we need to protect the artist. For every Pearl Jam there are probably 1,000 other musicians who make only enough to pay the rent. We should feel bad for teachers, nurses, first responders who are underpaid. Not artists that know it is a tough way to make money but they want to follow their passion. I would love to follow my passion and sit around and play golf all day. But reality sinks in.
The inherent risk of a public call-out is the potential for "uh actually I think you're in the wrong here"
Meh. This seems to be an acceptable form of compensation, if it weren’t, then they wouldn’t do it.
Could it have been explained better that she could have made a quick $10k plus with s/n APs and then get future opportunities? Yes. Did it have to be? No.
Did he have to say rescinded? No. Was it snarky? Maybe. Was she snarky first? Maybe.
Also, if you still get touchy over auto-correct or typos, then that is on you. Yes, even in “professional” emails. It happens all the time, to all of us, even in publishing and legal documents and things that do get proofread multiple times. Time to accept it and move on.
Reading the original back and forth and not the selected snippets, I was 100% expecting TSurt to rescind the offer. Tone in emails is tough sometimes to get correct, but Jess actually said the way TSurt and PJ approaches it is upside down. She clearly went out of her way to diss them before doing her research. If she said, "that's interesting. I'm not used to that approach. Let me do a bit of research and I'll get back to you in the next few days", then I think she would have the gig if she wanted it.
Still mulling on it. I’ve always been paid for any commercial job I’ve done. Have been happy to have a sliding scale depending on the project and what they can afford… but it’s always been something. So I have to say it seems a little upside down that a band like Pearl Jam would want to pay someone for their services in merch.
But will do a bit of research and see if it’s been financially viable for the other artists. Will be in touch in the New Year!
I agree completely, but perhaps I was treading too lightly in my post as to not get flamed for not siding with the artist.
Not sure why we have to feel like we need to protect the artist. For every Pearl Jam there are probably 1,000 other musicians who make only enough to pay the rent. We should feel bad for teachers, nurses, first responders who are underpaid. Not artists that know it is a tough way to make money but they want to follow their passion. I would love to follow my passion and sit around and play golf all day. But reality sinks in.
I'm not sure either and in this case I don't. With situations like this, as with many topics, some people are unable to evaluate on a case by case basis and always side with the little guy or the one doing the calling out. Just read the comments on the blog post, everyone jumping to the side of the artist, but in this case it seems like there is either nothing to see here or just blame that should be shared by both parties.
Do you guys think TSurt was on a tight deadline so had to make a call? Or do you think they jumped the gun in canning it? I'm not sure how far they'd need a final submission from an article in advance of a gig. Brad Klausen definitely seems the best qualified to answer this stuff. Seems to me like both sides can be right and also ignorant of the other's perspective. Might be a great deal in comparison to the way she's used to doing so, but having such a different business model has obviously taken her aback and communication/breakdowns could have been better. It's a shame she won't get the chance to do it. But yeah again I'm just trying to be philosophical and think they're reaching out to NZ artists for NZ concerts. Roll on November (allegedly).
Im not sure a poster in almost a years time is a tight deadline but then I have no idea how far in advance they usually work.
Its pretty smart on the bands end to have someone create products for them that they can sell like hot cakes at their show and earn a shit ton of money from without actually paying them. Its a very shrewd model imo, and a position they have earned and carved out over the years - there are tons of bands now making posters that would love to have the demand that our band has. That goes for all merch too - I remember the last time I went to see Springsteen - there was a merch stand with not one single person waiting or being served. The contrast from that to a PJ show is incredible, fair play to PJ for making that market for themselves
It's a smart business approach by the band. Asking the artist to sell AP´s, the artist will put more work into the piece to make sure it sells.
It will generate better art for the band. Just speculating here..
Yo dude, well its been quite a long time since we got a really good poster....soooooo................LOL
But regardless those AP's have all sold so the artists have been compensated pretty well. But then I wonder how long a piece like a Pitts 13 takes to create? I mean in hours. I wonder exactly how profitable it can be which will depend on how time intensive the process is.
Been too long man! Bought a membership again with the goal of scoring some tickets for the upcoming tour. Hopefully I get to see you along the way!
Yeah, the posters have been more miss than hit lately. Hopefully we get some good ones in 2024.
Now that sounds like a very very solid plan. Lets get together on the road......
Haven't seen this mentioned but I think it bears mentioning: almost every 2022/2023 Pearl Jam poster is still available directly from pearl jam's website (for members).
I would assume that doesn't help the value of AP's.
Pearl Jam is coming through and playing a 5k capacity theater. Their manager calls and says "we want your band to open!" We're not paying a fee but we'll give you 50 tickets to sell. We recommend $200 per.
Now, you personally may not feel like selling any tickets and that's fine. But those should be in high demand and many would see $10,000 and the chance to open for Pearl Jam. Not for everyone maybe but seems pretty good.
This is an excellent analogy and IMO illustrates why this isn't great for the artist. If I am that band I am stoked to open for Pearl Jam but also a little irked that I need to go do additional work besides playing the show. Sure, I might have a way of selling tickets for my puny shows, like Eventbrite or something, and I have a mailing list for my band. But maybe I am an avant garde band and my puny fan base doesn't even really typically like Pearl Jam, so now I have to figure out how to advertise to Pearl Jam fans to buy these tickets. Maybe it's not that hard but Pearl Jam has a massive infrastructure already set up to sell their tickets so why put the work on me? Add in the fact that even when I sell the tickets I have to distribute them too...
So it's still a great opportunity for the artist, and it's not all bad or all good, and it's not a bait and switch, but on Pearl Jam's part it's definitely a little tacky.
Do you guys think TSurt was on a tight deadline so had to make a call? Or do you think they jumped the gun in canning it? I'm not sure how far they'd need a final submission from an article in advance of a gig. Brad Klausen definitely seems the best qualified to answer this stuff. Seems to me like both sides can be right and also ignorant of the other's perspective. Might be a great deal in comparison to the way she's used to doing so, but having such a different business model has obviously taken her aback and communication/breakdowns could have been better. It's a shame she won't get the chance to do it. But yeah again I'm just trying to be philosophical and think they're reaching out to NZ artists for NZ concerts. Roll on November (allegedly).
Im not sure a poster in almost a years time is a tight deadline but then I have no idea how far in advance they usually work.
Its pretty smart on the bands end to have someone create products for them that they can sell like hot cakes at their show and earn a shit ton of money from without actually paying them. Its a very shrewd model imo, and a position they have earned and carved out over the years - there are tons of bands now making posters that would love to have the demand that our band has. That goes for all merch too - I remember the last time I went to see Springsteen - there was a merch stand with not one single person waiting or being served. The contrast from that to a PJ show is incredible, fair play to PJ for making that market for themselves
I did see one of the artists mention in a Facebook discussion on this article that there's a legitimate need to have a tight deadline for it to be squared away.
The fact that the PJ prints are almost assured to sell like hot cakes explains why the offer to the artist is "take it or leave it" and why the misses far outnumber the hits. What's TSURTs motivation to hire the best artist (who will want to be paid accordingly) when the merch line sales will be the same even if the artist is unknown and the poster is atrocious? If the fans stopped buying the duds, we might see more hits
What surprises me or actually doesn't surprise me is that some of you won't even give Pearl Jam the benefit of the doubt? It's like they're evil and screwing over people. We've known these guys for over 30 years to be upstanding people. Are they perfect. No. But to just to side against them without knowing all the factors.
This whole thing is likely simpler solved had TSurt just given the brand new artist that he has never worked with before and she likewise a few references to explain how the process worked and why it can work the way that bands do this.
It is irrelevant what the whole industry does or does not do, he could have just not assumed that this person he reached out to should have known all about how pearl jam fans are psychotic about posters.
This thread has reminded me of EMEK looking for tickets back in 2013. I had thought that was the kind of thing that would be negotiated into an artist's contract, but as we now know that is not the case.
This thread has reminded me of EMEK looking for tickets back in 2013. I had thought that was the kind of thing that would be negotiated into an artist's contract, but as we now know that is not the case.
This whole thing is likely simpler solved had TSurt just given the brand new artist that he has never worked with before and she likewise a few references to explain how the process worked and why it can work the way that bands do this.
It is irrelevant what the whole industry does or does not do, he could have just not assumed that this person he reached out to should have known all about how pearl jam fans are psychotic about posters.
Hard disagree..., I would argue it's not up to Tsurt to educate artists on how compensation in their chosen field works.
With that being said, she got an education regardless.
Comments
Why didn't Klausen do any Pearl Jam prints in 2023? Or Mumford? Are they taking a stand against an exploitative business model or were they not given the opportunity? I'm sure don't know, but with only 9 Pearl Jam shows, it's not as if there were all that many opportunities to be had.
IDK about Sperry, but i think the last time Emek did a print for PJ was 2018. Again, it's not as if PJ has been touring all that much over the last 5 years, but you could be on to something there...There is however, no shortage of concert posters in Emek's 2023 portfolio... do those other bands compensate the artists w/ a flat rate? I'm under the impression the AP compensation is the norm, but maybe that's not the case... if Pearl Jam (and other select bands) were the exception, I can't help but feel like more people would be grumbling about it, at least anonymously, especially w/ the way the concert posters have blown up over the last 20+ years,.
Your point about Ames brothers is a good one. Maybe it's nepotism, or maybe it's in consideration of a 25 year long relationship, maybe it's a little bit of both (or neither, and something we're not tuned in to... we really don't know)... but I'm curious about your point of them using lesser known artists... are you suggesting they're exploiting them because they're not in a position where they can refuse? It's possible, sure... it doesn't fit what I think to be their MO... I can't really see Jeff or Mike having a "f 'em, they're lucky just to have the opportunity" mentality about it, or any of the other guys really, but IDK... I don't know them personally, so I can't say.
There's been at least a few documentaries about the concert poster industry / phenomenon made over the last 10+ years. I've only seen one, but I know there's more out there... do any touch on the shady / exploitative way of how some bands compensate artists?
But regardless those AP's have all sold so the artists have been compensated pretty well. But then I wonder how long a piece like a Pitts 13 takes to create? I mean in hours. I wonder exactly how profitable it can be which will depend on how time intensive the process is.
It does make me wonder why TSurt doesn't want to pay up front. Is it because there is a small, but non-zero, possibility that they wouldn't recoup that money? If they have that concern, why wouldn't the artists?
Hartford 10.02.96 | Mansfield 2 09.16.98 | Mansfield 1 08.29.00 | Mansfield 1 07.02.03 | Mansfield 3 07.11.03 | Boston 2 05.25.06 | Tampa 04.11.16 | Fenway 1 08.05.16 | Fenway 2 08.07.16 | Fenway 1 09.02.18 | Fenway 2 09.04.18 | Baltimore 03.28.20 | Hamilton 09.06.22 | Toronto 09.08.22 | Nashville 09.16.22 | St Louis 09.18.22 | Baltimore 09.12.24 | Fenway 1 09.15.24 | Fenway 2 09.17.24
"He made the deal with the devil, we get to play with him.
He goes to hell, of course. We're going to heaven."
Ames is a different animal altogether for all the reasons already outlined. I would expect them to be treated uniquely.
Wellington 1998
London 2007
Brisbane 2009
Stockholm 2012
EV Dublin 2017
Milan 2018
Padova 2018
Boston 2 2018
As far as long standing relationships and / or more talented artists getting extra consideration or concessions... isn't that how most if not all industries work?
I think that's the overall point here... this is how the industry works. I don't think Pearl Jam approaches this differently than most if not any other band, and the insinuation from the author of that newsletter that this is a problem unique to PJ is unprofessional at best.
Its pretty smart on the bands end to have someone create products for them that they can sell like hot cakes at their show and earn a shit ton of money from without actually paying them. Its a very shrewd model imo, and a position they have earned and carved out over the years - there are tons of bands now making posters that would love to have the demand that our band has. That goes for all merch too - I remember the last time I went to see Springsteen - there was a merch stand with not one single person waiting or being served. The contrast from that to a PJ show is incredible, fair play to PJ for making that market for themselves
I would assume that doesn't help the value of AP's.
So it's still a great opportunity for the artist, and it's not all bad or all good, and it's not a bait and switch, but on Pearl Jam's part it's definitely a little tacky.
The fact that the PJ prints are almost assured to sell like hot cakes explains why the offer to the artist is "take it or leave it" and why the misses far outnumber the hits. What's TSURTs motivation to hire the best artist (who will want to be paid accordingly) when the merch line sales will be the same even if the artist is unknown and the poster is atrocious? If the fans stopped buying the duds, we might see more hits
It is irrelevant what the whole industry does or does not do, he could have just not assumed that this person he reached out to should have known all about how pearl jam fans are psychotic about posters.
http://www.hi5sports.org/ (Sports Program for Kids with Disabilities)
http://www.livefootsteps.org/user/?usr=3652
https://community.pearljam.com/discussion/225311/portland-poster-by-emek-he-needs-2-tickets
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
With that being said, she got an education regardless.