Originally Posted by chrisso
No complaints about Palmer being successful from me. Very good luck to her. I applaud successful artists.
The question is, if it's ok to accept free horn and string sections for Palmer's tour, isn't it ok for REM to do the same, or U2, The Stones or McCartney?
Why do some artists pay all their contributors, and others pay nothing, claiming the volunteers are happy?
I know 100 horn players who would kill to stand on stage (unpaid) with Macca. They'd be happy volunteers of course, so we shouldn't criticise them, but I think anyone normal would criticse McCartney or REM for exploiting fans or desperate young musicians (if they did.... but they don't).
I don't think it's particularly the norm to pay people for sitting in for a couple of songs in a set. As to the whole "would it be cool if Mccartney or REM did it?" thing, why wouldn't it? All depends on how everything is handled. But don't pretend that Amanda Palmer is in the same category as Michael Stipe or Paul McCartney. She's playing clubs, not arenas. She crashes on people's couches to avoid paying for hotel rooms. She has a following, but it's not like she even gets radio play generally. But even so, if the Rolling Stones brought a few local musicians on stage for 2 songs in every city, rather than bringing a couple of extra people along, I'd be cool with that. What the hell, it's an opportunity for that many more people to get an audience they didn't already have. No one's being screwed if everyone's happy with the deal.