AMJT T-Shirt: An AMJT Commentary
Todd Lowenstein
love the shirt design and hope I am allowed to get several (me with
extras, wife, kids, etc.). This was a wonderful idea and I am impressed
how this newsgroup has taken fandom up a notch with CD trees, beautifully
designed T-shirts, etc. Even Ian has joined in! Kudos for all involved!
However, the T-shirt project has a couple of uh-ohs, if you ask me
(you didn't, but that never stopped me before). Minor, at this point, but
I would like the opportunity to voice my opinion without anyone taking it
as a personal attack. Please. Okay?
1. AMJT is a fandom project. Fandom. I think it is terrific if and when
the band joins in. But the band should not be given the authority to make
our decisions. Their advise should be highly valued, but AMJT is ours
(and they are a part of "us" when they participate), not theirs. Asking
Ian (or other band memebers) what they think is fine, but asking them for
permission to come out with T-shirts goes too far.
Before anyone chooses to disagree on the basis of copyright, etc., they
must make the statement that they do not own any bootlegs and have never
made a copy of an album for someone else. I would also add that this is a
moot point because regardless of how many AMJT shirts are made, it would
not result in any less sales of concert T-shirts. But the recent
controversy regarding Dot.Com and the beautiful AMJT shirt design actually
makes me think that, perhaps, 20 less concert shirts may be sold (Note:
this is a compliment to the AMJT shirt project team!).
Also, Ian is not MY GOD! (well, he is. But ...He's not the kind you have
to call-up for T-shirts. Eh.). He knows about our newsgroup and if he
had any real objections, he could (and would) voice them. I am guessing
that AMJT being a real grass roots coming together of fans is something he
finds interesting and flattering. I would be shocked to find out that a
project of such creativity as the T-shirt is something he would want to
subject to his formal review and legally documented authorization.
2. Charitable contributions are not really "charity" when the people
making the "contributions" are given the choice of "if you don't like it,
you did not have to buy the shirt." It is a "profit" when it is structured
that way. That the "profit" is a project team decision to give to a
charity does not make it any less of a "profit" since it is built in to
the price offered to the buyer. Or a "tax", if you prefer a different
term. Let me say here and now that this comment is intended for any other
future projects. In my personal opinion, the T-shirt team has set this
feature of the project in motion at this time and should finish it in the
manner they choose, with all the fun left in tact. Just consider this for
next time, okay?
Perhaps a better way of mixing projects with charity would have been to
inform Ian that a collection was being taken and ask what charity he would
like it to go to. Then, the newsgroup could be informed of his decision,
and if any one wanted to add a buck or two with their order, the T-shirt
team would pass it along. Or if one liked the cause, they could
contribute directly to it on their own, if they preferred to keep T-shirts
and charity separate. Or not at all if they did not want to support that
cause. I am deliberately making up this riduculous example, but it makes
my point: If Ian said he wanted the money to go to a terrorist group,
then what (assuming anyone still wanted a T-shirt)? This does make it
clear why fandom and charity are best kept separate. It makes my point
again that this is our fan group, not a legally bound extension of Jethro
Tull's legal structure to be controlled.
Sorry to have written a "novel" here, but I had an opinion, and for once,
had time to express it. If anyone (everyone?) disagrees with me, crucify
me in writing. Hey, that can happen when you express an opinion. I
probably won't have the time and motivation to respond in length, if at
all, so you probably get the last word in. My last word at this time is
directed to the AMJT T-shirt project team: You have done a wonderful job
(so far) and I will gladly "contribute" to whatever cause is chosen, I am
sure. I am just saying that Ian should not be asked to make our decisions
for us and that fan projects should avoid "profits" in order to remain
pure.
I thank anyone who actually reads this whole posting. I doubt I would
have if someone else posted something this long.
Todd
Ray Irvine
I am not involved with the T-shirt venture, so much of this
speculation. I agree with many of of your comments. As far as the
charitable contributions go, you may have over-emphasized this point. I
had assumed that this would consist primarily of any excess funds after
the project is over.
It is hard to estimate exactly what the final cost of production and
distribution of the shirts will be. For this reason, the price needs to
include enough of a fudge factor so that no one gets left holding the
bag. This means that ideally there will be some small amount of funds
remaining. The charitable contribution is simply on means of disposing
of them. By allowing Ian to decide the receipient, it eliminates most
of the contention.
Ray
Todd Lowenstein
>Todd,
>
>I am not involved with the T-shirt venture, so much of this
>speculation. I agree with many of of your comments. As far as the
>charitable contributions go, you may have over-emphasized this point. I
>had assumed that this would consist primarily of any excess funds after
>the project is over.
>
>It is hard to estimate exactly what the final cost of production and
>distribution of the shirts will be. For this reason, the price needs to
>include enough of a fudge factor so that no one gets left holding the
>bag. This means that ideally there will be some small amount of funds
>remaining. The charitable contribution is simply on means of disposing
>of them. By allowing Ian to decide the receipient, it eliminates most
>of the contention.
>
>Ray
Good point, Ray. Frankly, a lot of the postings that I based my comments
on were from memory as they no longer appeared on my browser. But I do
think there was a deliberate charitable contribution factor going to be
built in. What you say would make a lot of sense, if cost estimates turn
out to be too low.
Todd
Rantz Hoseley
Todd Lowenstein brought up some things that bothered him about the AMJ-T shirt
thingy:
>
> 1. AMJT is a fandom project. Fandom. I think it is terrific if and when
> the band joins in. But the band should not be given the authority to make
> our decisions. Their advise should be highly valued, but AMJT is ours
> (and they are a part of "us" when they participate), not theirs. Asking
> Ian (or other band memebers) what they think is fine, but asking them for
> permission to come out with T-shirts goes too far.
Ok Todd, that's your opinion and you are welcome to it. Let me try and
explain (as the designer) where I am coming from.
I've been working with 'Rock Stars' since 1987, from Aerosmith to Tori Amos,
I've done videos, tour programmes, T-shirts, you name it. Some of these
people are friends of mine, some are simply jobs that I do. However, this
long exposure to the life of the 'famous musician' has given me an insight and
sensitivity to being in the music biz.
I have been a fan of Tull since 1977. Ian and the boys are the ONLY band that
I have listened to through every stage of my life, and they mean a lot to me.
As such, I feel they have given a great deal to me as a fan, and to the
public. *As an Artist* I am not going to design and replicate a shirt which
people will wear to the Tull shows without Ian's verbal or written OK. To me,
that is akin to me saying "Hey Ian, I know you've slaved over this band for 30
years, and that it's your life and creative soul... don't mind me, I'll just
piggyback here."
To me, personally, I cannot justify this. Whether you think it's uncalled for
or not, it is my personal stance, and it is not changing. I've watched
artists and musicians get fucked too many times for me to have a passive
attitude in this. This isn't said with malice, or a condemning voice Todd,
it is how I personally function and the parameters I set for myself.
And don't for one second hand me the
"they must make the statement that they do not own any bootlegs and have
never
made a copy of an album for someone else."
statement. There is a huge difference in making a tape from an album you own,
and mass-manufacturing a CD or Tape, with professional looking artwork to
sell. In the T-shirt realm, If I want to make a shirt for myself, fine I'll
do that. It is one of a kind, and it's my solo bit. However the second my
art is replicated en masse to be distributed it is subject to being seen as an
effort to 'cash in' on the band. Whether from a profit, or exposure
standpoint. Again, this is how I personally function and the parameters that
I live by.
> 2. Charitable contributions are not really "charity" when the people
> making the "contributions" are given the choice of "if you don't like it,
> you did not have to buy the shirt." It is a "profit" when it is structured
> that way. That the "profit" is a project team decision to give to a
> charity does not make it any less of a "profit" since it is built in to
> the price offered to the buyer. Or a "tax", if you prefer a different
> term. Let me say here and now that this comment is intended for any other
> future projects. In my personal opinion, the T-shirt team has set this
> feature of the project in motion at this time and should finish it in the
> manner they choose, with all the fun left in tact. Just consider this for
> next time, okay?
In designing the t-shirt for the rec.music.tori-amos group a couple of years
back, it became very apparent that there was a huge difference in terms of
shipping costs. The way that group handled it was to charge a set price, the
excess beyond cost of goods and shipping of which would be contributed to
RAINN, a charity that Tori had started.
In the same fashion, and to make sure that there was no suspicion of this
being a 'for profit' endeavor, I proposed that we do the same thing, and that
the shirts be tagged a little higher so that a significant donation to charity
could be made, rather than throwing out a check for $50 at the end. I *asked*
when the shirt was proposed if this was agreeable to everyone, and the
majority of the response was positive. As a matter of fact, I don't remember
ONE posting or email saying "no, I don't like this", until now. If you want
to have an effect on policy, Todd, speak up when opinions are asked for.
No one is forcing you to buy the shirt, or to agree with how we've tried to
set it up. From a personal standpoint, I thought this would be a nice thing
to do, and so I set it up in a way that would allow me to feel that I had done
'right' by the band, and the karmic forces (as cheesy as that sounds) of the
universe. That's all.
-R
Todd Lowenstein
1. Rantz' Response: I've been working with 'Rock Stars' since 1987, from
Aerosmith to Tori Amos, I've done videos, tour programmes, T-shirts, you
name it. Some of these people are friends of mine, some are simply jobs
that I do. However, this long exposure to the life of the 'famous
musician' has given me an insight and sensitivity to being in the music
biz.
I have been a fan of Tull since 1977. Ian and the boys are the ONLY band
that I have listened to through every stage of my life, and they mean a
lot to me. As such, I feel they have given a great deal to me as a fan,
and to the public. *As an Artist* I am not going to design and replicate
a shirt which people will wear to the Tull shows without Ian's verbal or
written OK. To me, that is akin to me saying "Hey Ian, I know you've
slaved over this band for 30 years, and that it's your life and creative
soul... don't mind me, I'll just piggyback here."
To me, personally, I cannot justify this. Whether you think it's uncalled
for or not, it is my personal stance, and it is not changing. I've
watched artists and musicians get fucked too many times for me to have a
passive attitude in this. This isn't said with malice, or a condemning
voice Todd, it is how I personally function and the parameters I set for
myself.
1. Todd's reply: What I was trying to say is that AMJT is fandom's, not
Ian's. You elequently explain why you see it in light of royalties,
rip-offs, etc. I just don't see the celebration of our fandom "fucking"
Jethro Tull if they don't approve the T-shirt. If you feel that way, then
of course you would not want to do something that you feel rips of Jethro
Tull or offends them. I personally disagree with the context you place
the project in. Certainly, no one should ask you to do something you
don't think is right. If you want to ask Ian's permission, go ahead. If
someone else has a similar project and they don't want to, I think that is
okay, too. At least under similar circumstances where the goal is to
celebrate our fandom without any individuals seeking profits.
2. Rantz' Response: And don't for one second hand me the "they must make
the statement that they do not own any bootlegs and have never made a copy
of an album for someone else." statement. There is a huge difference in
making a tape from an album you own, and mass-manufacturing a CD or Tape,
with professional looking artwork to sell. In the T-shirt realm, If I
want to make a shirt for myself, fine I'll do that. It is one of a kind,
and it's my solo bit. However the second my art is replicated en masse to
be distributed it is subject to being seen as an effort to 'cash in' on
the band. Whether from a profit, or exposure standpoint. Again, this is
how I personally function and the parameters that I live by.
2. Todd's Reply. Gotta disagree with you here. Making one copy for a
friend compared to making a zillion T-shirts for friends is the really the
same thing. Quality of the T-shirt art is irrelevant. Of course, the
scale makes you question the altruistic intention of zillions of T-shirts.
All I am saying is anyone that says "I can do this or that because it is
just one or two but you can't because it is a lot" can be accused of
selective morality. Volume really does not change the concept. But, when
you say it is YOUR art that is being mass-produced, then I say your vote
is the only one that counts.
3. Rantz' Response: In designing the t-shirt for the rec.music.tori-amos
group a couple of years back, it became very apparent that there was a
huge difference in terms of shipping costs. The way that group handled
it was to charge a set price, the excess beyond cost of goods and shipping
of which would be contributed to RAINN, a charity that Tori had started.
In the same fashion, and to make sure that there was no suspicion of this
being a 'for profit' endeavor, I proposed that we do the same thing, and
that the shirts be tagged a little higher so that a significant donation
to charity could be made, rather than throwing out a check for $50 at the
end.
3. Todd's Reply: I felt bad about misinterpretting your intent when you
explained the cost overruns needing covering. But when you say you
decided to bump up the price so there is a more significant contribution
at the end, I reiterate my point. I think you should let others decide
about making charitable contributions without putting them in a "you don't
have to buy the shirt" situation. And a profit is a profit. That you
intend for it to go to a worthy cause does not make it any less a profit.
4. Rantz' Response: I *asked* when the shirt was proposed if this was
agreeable to everyone, and the majority of the response was positive. As
a matter of fact, I don't remember ONE posting or email saying "no, I
don't like this", until now. If you want to have an effect on policy,
Todd, speak up when opinions are asked for.
4. Todd's Reply: Absolutely!! I did not have an opinion when you scoped
out the project. Later, I developed one or two and said that my comments
are intended for future projects. I missed the opportunity on this one to
voice an opinion when it counted. But from your reponses above, I think
you would have disagreed with me even if I had voiced them earlier. And
that is fine, too, because you are the one doing the work.
5. Rantz' Response: No one is forcing you to buy the shirt, or to agree
with how we've tried to set it up. From a personal standpoint, I thought
this would be a nice thing to do, and so I set it up in a way that would
allow me to feel that I had done 'right' by the band, and the karmic
forces (as cheesy as that sounds) of the universe. That's all.
5. Todd's Reply: Ouch! The dreaded "no one is forcing you to buy the
shirt" comment. I had hoped that would be avoided because I am making
suggestions and expressing opinions, not demanding any conformity to them.
But you are right, no one is forcing me to buy the shirt. Hey, after all
I have written I hope you LET me buy the shirt, a couple of spares ('cause
I want to keep wearing it) and ones for my wife and kids. I feel bad
because I did not want to take the fun out the project for you and all the
others involved. Perhaps my comments have. Sorry. The T-shirt is a
terrific idea that appears to have been beautifully executed. But at the
end of the day, if I had a similar project (yeah, like as if I had one
tenth of your talent), I would not feel it necessary or appropriate to ask
Ian's permission and I would stay clear of building in any deliberate
profits. You feel differently, obviously. Okay with me. It really is
not that big an idealogical issue to me (though you wouldn't know that in
light of the volume of effort I have obviously put into this. As I said,
for once I had the time and felt like expressing my thoughts).
6. Todd thanks Rantz: Thanks for being so creative. And ethical, for
that matter. I may not agree with you but where do you see such intregity
these days? You are on the Karmic plus side, me thinks. I respect that
and hope the feeling is mutual because I really do feel the issues were
worth discussing. Agreement with any of my positions was always intended
to be optional.
Todd
WiseGuy
>
> it is how I personally function and the parameters I set for myself.
Which is to say, you go the extra mile to be certain you are
nothing but decent, polite and civil, which IMO puts you in
good stead, and of like mind, with the band.
Well, excepting of course for that darned indecent, impolite
and uncivilised Dot Com t-shirt.
:)
WiseGuy
>
> Making one copy for a friend compared to making a zillion T-shirts
> for friends is the really the same thing. Quality of the T-shirt
> art is irrelevant. Of course, the scale makes you question the
> altruistic intention of zillions of T-shirts.
> All I am saying is anyone that says "I can do this or that because
> it is just one or two but you can't because it is a lot" can be
> accused of selective morality. Volume really does not change the
> concept.
You may be neglecting somewhat the high significance of two words
specifically included by Rantz: "to sell".
DJTULLFAN
jeronimo...@my-deja.com
Rantz Hoseley <rhos...@quicksilver.com> wrote:
> No one is forcing you to buy the shirt, or to agree with how we've
tried to
> set it up. From a personal standpoint, I thought this would be a
nice thing
> to do, and so I set it up in a way that would allow me to feel that I
had done
> 'right' by the band, and the karmic forces (as cheesy as that sounds)
of the
> universe. That's all.
I'm glad I took the time to read this message of yours, Rantz! As far
as I'm concerned you *have* done right and I can't wait to get a amj-t-
shirt with your GREAT painting! You're doing a magnificient job.
Cheers,
Jeronimo
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Rantz Hoseley
Todd Lowenstein stated how his opinion differs from mine then said:
> 6. Todd thanks Rantz: Thanks for being so creative. And ethical, for
> that matter. I may not agree with you but where do you see such intregity
> these days? You are on the Karmic plus side, me thinks. I respect that
> and hope the feeling is mutual because I really do feel the issues were
> worth discussing. Agreement with any of my positions was always intended
> to be optional.
No problem Todd, my response was simply to publicly clarify my position
on
this matter. It wasn't a "Out evil bootleg supporting villain!" kinda
thing.
Just me trying to explain where I personally am coming from in this.
Again, as you stated, agreement with my statements or stances, is not
required
(and seldom taken up for that matter! <g>) You can still get as many
shirts
as you wish, I certainly don't support the 'preferred nation mentality'
that
many people enact when confronted by an opinion that doesn't match their
own..
-R
Rantz Hoseley
WiseGuy wrote:
> Rantz Hoseley wrote:
> >
> > it is how I personally function and the parameters I set for myself.
>
> Which is to say, you go the extra mile to be certain you are
> nothing but decent, polite and civil, which IMO puts you in
> good stead, and of like mind, with the band.
Uh, well... I *really* don't know about that. I've been called many
things in my life. Never polite or civil... Wow, does this mean i'm
growing Up?!? (shudder in fear)
> Well, excepting of course for that darned indecent, impolite
> and uncivilised Dot Com t-shirt.
Well, I paint nekkid people, so it seem to be in the same vein. er...
that is to say... um...
-R
Manic Mike
Just a note to remind us all that no matter what our differences are in
this world, we all have the music of Tull that we all share together. I
personally would love one or two of these shirts but I respectfully decline
if Ian and the band does not approve and that's my only problem besides The
band skipping Florida!
Manic Mike (a Ranting)
Rantz Hoseley <rhos...@quicksilver.com> wrote in message
news:3766D76D...@quicksilver.com...
Kram Namloc
Anderson? Would we intentionally do something that might make him angry?
Rightly, Rantz asked permission like all artists (and mortals) should.
Kram
jlc45
>
> WiseGuy wrote:
>
> > Rantz Hoseley wrote:
> > >
> > > it is how I personally function and the parameters I set for myself.
> >
> > Which is to say, you go the extra mile to be certain you are
> > nothing but decent, polite and civil, which IMO puts you in
> > good stead, and of like mind, with the band.
>
> Uh, well... I *really* don't know about that. I've been called many
> things in my life. Never polite or civil... Wow, does this mean i'm
> growing Up?!? (shudder in fear)
>
> > Well, excepting of course for that darned indecent, impolite
> > and uncivilised Dot Com t-shirt.
>
> Well, I paint nekkid people, so it seem to be in the same vein. er...
> that is to say... um...
>
> -R
That sounds like fun. Do you paint clothes on them?
Jim :-)
URDEggMen
AMJT-shirt wasn't reported in "Variety". I can see the headline now:
RANTZ RAVES
Rich (begging your forgiveness)
Rantz Hoseley
URDEggMen wrote:
> What a shame that the universal reaction to the wonderful artwork for the
> AMJT-shirt wasn't reported in "Variety". I can see the headline now:
>
> RANTZ RAVES
Well, one of my supervisors when I first got into the interactive/software
biz, introduced me to a client, saying "it's not so much a name, as it is a
state of existence." Which, I'll admit, its pretty accurate, and one of the
reasons my wife doesn't want to name any son of ours after me!
(and that's not even going into the history behind the name...)
> Rich (begging your forgiveness)
Aw, that's allright Rich. However, your overwhelming love of the beatles is
another thing altogether... <g>
-R
URDEggMen
love of the beatles is another thing altogether... <g>>>
If you only knew... <g>