All-Encompassing Pearl Jam Thread

[ygolohcysp]

100%^

If he's so confident it's a better deal for the artist to take the prints he should put his money where his mouth is and pay the artist then sell them himself. To say "well screw you then, there's a line of artists waiting to do a print for us" is just being a douchebag

[turnJBup]

I’ve commissioned 20 prints or so.. nothing like PJ level.
Most I paid was $1750 for 100 prints. Artist gets to sell 20 or so on line.
Another $500 bucks.

So if Pearl Jam calls and gives you a shot at making 5-8k for emailing a jpeg of an image, I’m not sure what the issue is.
It’s an simple business plan without all the paperwork, calculators & accountants.
Works really well. For years.
You want money in hand?
They don’t do it that way. But you will get paid well. Really well. Ask Emek.
She said no.
Wanted to see if she had a shot at getting paid more.
Can’t have two offers out for one job, so he moved on.

No one is getting taken advantage of.
It says Pearl Jam on it.
If you’re a no name artist it puts you on the god damn map.

Rescinded.
That’s what this is all about right?
It’s a harsh word. I think the artist is just a bit hurt that they weren’t more patient with her?
Maybe should have given her more time, but like it or not, the band is doing the artist a favor…
Not visa versa.
One of the rare times when doing your homework didn’t pay off.
I’m guessing this whole thing surfaced because of bitterness over an opportunity lost, rather than
a dig at their business model no?

[KipPotapych]

I’d have to agree with turnJBup here. But I also see how an artist without an online store can see it as a liability and trouble not worth going through. Imagine sitting with a stack of Pearl Jam poster at farmers market in New Zealand. Though I do not see an illustrator, graphic designer, what have you, would have issues with a web.

On the other hand, I always assumed that’s how this business works to begin with and likely Emek, Sperry, etc are no exception. Why would they be? The better the poster, the more you make potentially, unless you sell them for $40 or whatever a pop by default like some guys and gals do. You make a shitty poster, you get paid accordingly.

[fredo]

Who’s to say what a shitty poster is? The artist may love it regardless of what we think.

The band takes zero risk here, does near-zero work. Also they’re richer than Jesus and merch is a cash cow on big tours.

They’re just tipping with the artist’s money imo

And it took me only 5 login attempts to post that

[ygolohcysp]

They're buying the design work from the artist at half price at least. Nothing like nickel and diming the person that's bringing in a sizeable line item on that show's merch sales. they say "you could make $3k" - but that requires more work on top of what was already done. so it's not really "making $3k". if the artist's rate for that type of design work is $2000 then the touring music machine business is getting the work from them not for $2k in cost, but for the production cost of 100 posters. when you've contracted the print shop out for 4 weeks with production of your entire tour run you're not paying $17.50 a print for 18 x 24, it's probably more like $10-12 per print. so the touring music machine business is definitely taking advantage of the artist by paying them in currency that cost them $1k in real money.

if that's "just the way it works" well that's drymounting shitty.

[KipPotapych]

Who’s to say what a shitty poster is? The artist may love it regardless of what we think.

The band takes zero risk here, does near-zero work. Also they’re richer than Jesus and merch is a cash cow on big tours.

They’re just tipping with the artist’s money imo

And it took me only 5 login attempts to post that

Essentially, the artist can love whatever they want, but they are making posters for us, the people who pay for them.

I agree on the second point, but the band got there, with their own talent, some started in the garage, club, got offered to open for another who made it, refused and stayed in the garage and club, while others agreed and made it as well; some of those who refused still made it but took a longer road, etc.

They are also giving artists a chance to be heard of in the first place (even via the articles such as one cited above), and get paid via the market that values their work at what it is actually worth (kind of ideal capitalist world, really, except they are providing an audience/market to the artist to begin with). They are still taking a risk of printing a huge stack of shitty posters that will sit on the table and then at their online store, eventually going on clearance for 10 bucks a pop and still sitting there. While pennies for them, the risk is still there.

Definitely agree on the last point, lol.

[KipPotapych]

Example of what the artist liked and got paid for:



He then agreed that it could be better and said he would deliver with the free print and he did:

[jojobadass]

I'm happy to tell you if a poster is shitty or not

feel free to ask anytime

[ygolohcysp]

It's not like the band says "can you do a poster" and then just take whatever they get sent, there's back and forth and revisions so they get something they're satisfied with. A "shitty poster" is on the designer and the person that hired them that signed off on it.

There's fair points all around but it's just ironic that pearl jam is the band this particular discussion is revolving around. And the fact that one artist is exploiting another when they're both artists and know the struggle of a being an artist as a business also has a similar feel.

If you told me that this is the way the rolling stones operate that wouldn't surprise me one bit. Or Justin Bieber. But pearl jam? The guys that fought Ticketmaster because they didn't want fans getting fleeced? It's a bad look

[KipPotapych]

Can’t say I necessarily disagree. However, they are a brand and a big one and they are letting the artist use that brand to sell their artwork. Moreover, they are letting the artist to set the price that they think their artwork is worth or whatever they think is “fair”.

It also probably goes both ways. Name a band that no one ever heard of that approaches an artist to create a poster. They’ll be asked to pay whatever it is the artist thinks is reasonable because regardless of how great the poster is there will be a few attendees and (maybe) me, lol, buying the poster. There is no way to get paid otherwise.

At the same time, let’s say the same no name band approaches an artist, who asks for $1,000 (no idea what the charge would be) and creates something epic. Then, the same artist is approached by Pearl Jam/Metallica/Phish/etc and asked to create the same. What is the artist going to charge? $1,000? $3,000? Why the difference? I bet an electrician setting up the lights would charge the same $140 or whatever per hour (but may have a minimum charge clause with a no name band). Instead they say, you put our name on your artwork, we sell 2,000 copies at $35 a pop, and you get 100 copies that you can do with as you will (some limitations likely apply). Provided you create something half decent, you can probably sell your 100 signed copies for $3,500 less expenses; do something better and sell them for $7K; if you think you can pull $15,000, godspeed! Or here is $1,000 instead. We can even probably assist you with advice (or provide jojo’s contact if he wasn’t too lazy) on how to move the posters.

On the other hand, someone in the big band does a few too many lines one evening and connects with -insert big artist name- to do a poster and says we would like you to make a poster for us and we will pay you $1,000 for your troubles like we did that other dude the other week. Would the artist be offended?

One can say that the idea here is to put as much time and effort/creativity as you want because the amount of money you make is totally up to you, really, as long as you think it makes sense to put that much time effort. For someone who had never worked in this market it may seem unusual and “sketchy”; for others it is a normality and they know that they can charge $40 per for their Dirty Heads posters and $150 for Pearl Jam posters of “equal quality”. Or they can go and do something else with their time and maybe make $2-5K (completely arbitrary) instead.

In reality, I have no idea how this fudge works, so speaking out of my ass, really. But it does seem reasonable to me, especially if the opportunity is given to someone that no one in the gig and poster worlds heard of before. So I do not think it is unreasonable. Are they taking advantage in a way? For sure. Are they providing an opportunity at the same time? For sure. My arbitrary basement band is not going to approach Emek and ask him to create a poster for our “meet the band evening” because we cannot afford it (but I am sure he would do something totally wacky if we had enough funds to pay and the more funds we had, (potentially) the wackier it would be).

In case of this artist, she didn’t like it (or hesitated), they figured there is Ken Taylor not too far off who would take the job, and likely dozens of others who are looking for an opportunity like this. So again, I think I agree with turnJBup here that the whole “sorrow” is maybe over an opportunity lost rather than concern about how things work.

[ygolohcysp]

I'm with you on most of this. The one thing that's been brought up a couple of times is that there's a relationship between the quality of the work and the fact that you will have to sell your own posters to get paid for doing the work. Shitty people phone it because they got paid up front. Don't work with shitty people. I don't think there's any incentive for an artist that takes pride in their work to do a better job because their paycheck depends on it, they do a great job because they wouldn't have it any other way. I guess if every gig poster artist took pride in their finished product getting paid up front would not be an issue? Personally I think that's a cop out on the part of TSURT in this case in order to get a better deal for themselves on artwork.

Or maybe gp artists are generally a bunch of lazy drymounts and too many bands have been burnt in the past so this is the standard practice to ensure they don't get shitty work? If that were the case, goddamn there's a lot of stuff that sneaks in as a "great job"

I am also talking out of my ass because I have no idea about any of this either. I have a lot of experience selling prints, I don't generally buy the ones that I don't personally find merit in. I have a couple of friends though that are in the industry and I'm going to bring this whole topic up the next time we have a chance to sit down and talk because I'd really like to get more insight from the inside. Also gonna float this by an artist friend of mine

[Kdh12]

You all way over thinking this. In short PJ could’ve said here is 5k to design this poster and she probably would’ve jumped at it. Even if less than what she could’ve sold her AP’s for, the fact they didn’t offer that is shitty for an artist.

[turnJBup]

You all way over thinking this. In short PJ could’ve said here is 5k to design this poster and she probably would’ve jumped at it. Even if less than what she could’ve sold her AP’s for, the fact they didn’t offer that is shitty for an artist.

5k?!
That’s what I’m saying.
From my experience that’s 2 or 3 times the going rate. It shouldn’t matter how many posters the band sells. It’s their huge name.
It’s a great gig.
All she had to do was email a jpeg right?
Probably not even an email to the printer with a color request.
A drawing, an email, a box of posters on the porch with free postage I’m guessing.
Put them on Etsy for $100 a pop.
It’s a wonderful business plan.
It’s evolved into this..: when you think about it, no wonder it’s the way they do it.
Definitely the route I would go.

Yes, back to the incentive aspect.
It’s definitely a good scenario to squeeze better art out of artists without any hassle.
You throw it on Facebook.
You monitor the buzz, and charge accordingly.
There’s no reason the artist can’t clear 7k if they do it right.
Hell of a lot better than getting a check for $2200.
Think about all the risk, headache, paperwork, taxes, accounting, deadlines, the band dodges.



If it turns into shirts, hoodies, magnets, koozies, album cover…
Whole different story.

She fumbled. She’s bummed.
They could have said, I’m on a deadline, email a yes or no by 5pm, if we don’t hear from you we’ve moved on. They were short with her.
That’s all this is.

Mr Sperry graced my guy JJ/Stockholm Syndrome with 3 posters in the olden days. Didn’t ask for a dime. We simply split the pile. EZ PZ.

Okay, I think I’m done throwing my two pennies around. XO

[turnJBup]

Let’s talk about Ames releasing 50 new Artist Proofs for a drymounting 2003 poster at $750 a pop.
That’s a rag session I can grab a pitchfork for.
The extra large reprint money grab wasn’t quite enough.

[guryter]

Interesting reading the back and forth on this. Kinda comes down to "be grateful for the opportunity" and "treat artists better". I happen to fall into the latter.