Dub-Stepping Violinist Lindsey Stomp Earned $6 Million Via YouTube

John Keefer

Devilish Rogue
Aug 12, 2013
630
0
0
Dub-Stepping Violinist Lindsey Stomp Earned $6 Million Via YouTube



Lindsey Stirling dances and plays the violin at the same time, and in the process has become YouTube's fourth highest grossing personality.

She may not be as big of a star as Forbes Magazine [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/tag/view/pewdiepie].

With PewDiePie ranked #1 and raking in around $12 million, Stirling is continues to build a name for herself with her entertaining videos - many with a fantasy or video game tie to them - and some damn fine music. We've mentioned her a few times on The Escapist with her video for Dragon Age: Inquisition [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/124373-Two-Halo-Fans-Play-Classical-Instruments-During-a-Firefight].

Stirling started making videos in 2007 after no record label would take on her unique talent. Now, reports have her turning them away, as she does quite well on her own, thanks to the loyal fanbase on America's Got Talent [https://www.youtube.com/user/lindseystomp].

"It's a very loyal fan base that wants you to succeed because they found you," Stirling told Forbes. "It wasn't some big radio station or record label that shoved art down someone's throat."

If you aren't familiar with her work (I wasn't), watch and listen and be entertained. I can surely see how she is so popular on YouTube.

Sterling and Peter Hollens tribute to Skyrim
Pokemon Dubstep remix with Sterling and Kurt Hugo Schneider
And this one for fun.

Source: Forbes Magazine [http://www.forbes.com/pictures/gjdm45jih/4-lindsey-stirling-6-mil/]

Permalink
 

martyrdrebel27

New member
Feb 16, 2009
1,320
0
0
my favorite part of this story is that the labels wanted nothing to do with her before, and now they're beating down her door. hahah screw those corporate bottom-liners. they're destroying real art. the age of information is bringing it back.
 

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
6,652
0
0
martyrdrebel27 said:
my favorite part of this story is that the labels wanted nothing to do with her before, and now they're beating down her door. hahah screw those corporate bottom-liners. they're destroying real art. the age of information is bringing it back.
As much as I like her and I'm happy for her success I wouldn't call what she does real art. She's just using her skill to play music created by somebody else.
 

martyrdrebel27

New member
Feb 16, 2009
1,320
0
0
Adam Jensen said:
martyrdrebel27 said:
my favorite part of this story is that the labels wanted nothing to do with her before, and now they're beating down her door. hahah screw those corporate bottom-liners. they're destroying real art. the age of information is bringing it back.
As much as I like her and I'm happy for her success I wouldn't call what she does real art. She's just using her skill to play music created by somebody else.
yeah, well you're not even a real person, so I don't care. take your augs somewhere else, you damn robot. when reading your opinion, I just kept saying to myself "I never asked for this!"

(jokes man, jokes.)
 

jamail77

New member
May 21, 2011
683
0
0
Adam Jensen said:
As much as I like her and I'm happy for her success I wouldn't call what she does real art. She's just using her skill to play music created by somebody else.
......She also plays original music. Quite frequently actually relatively speaking. I'm not sure how that slipped you by considering they mention record labels rejecting her then clamoring for her when she started doing well. Why would she approach record labels and they her after the fact if she didn't play original music, only covers? If record labels deal in covers, that's news to me, but then again I don't keep up with the music business all that well let alone how it works.

Even if she didn't play her own original music I would definitely consider covers art especially hers. I mean, if she's not changing the arrangement in some way she's adding something to it and if she's not doing that the dancing is most certainly her own (She practically invented violin dancing, or whatever a good name for it would be, as far as I know. Don't think anyone else even does it, even 8 years after she started) and the design of the environment/effects/whatever hers and whoever helped her create it. To so narrowly define art I'm sorry to say this comes off as callously pedantic to me. As if all art needs to start out as an original thought when we all know how much has been borrowed, if not directly copied short of lawsuit or malice, to create something new.
 

Guffe

New member
Jul 12, 2009
5,106
0
0
I like her videos, they're energetic and she plays well, dances well and finds nice scenery to do it in.
I haven't watched her original/own stuff, but at least her Zelda videos are good.
 

Fdzzaigl

New member
Mar 31, 2010
822
0
0
She makes some pretty neat stuff. Worth watching and listening too much more so than some of the big names who make far more than that imo.
 

John Keefer

Devilish Rogue
Aug 12, 2013
630
0
0
good for her, I wouldn't say it was earsplittingly painful, but more that than enjoyable. Just sounds like that generic riverdance noise to me, but still, good for her.
 

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
6,652
0
0
jamail77 said:
Adam Jensen said:
As much as I like her and I'm happy for her success I wouldn't call what she does real art. She's just using her skill to play music created by somebody else.
......She also plays original music. Quite frequently actually relatively speaking. I'm not sure how that slipped you by considering they mention record labels rejecting her then clamoring for her when she started doing well. Why would she approach record labels and they her after the fact if she didn't play original music, only covers? If record labels deal in covers, that's news to me, but then again I don't keep up with the music business all that well let alone how it works.

Even if she didn't play her own original music I would definitely consider covers art especially hers. I mean, if she's not changing the arrangement in some way she's adding something to it and if she's not doing that the dancing is most certainly her own (She practically invented violin dancing, or whatever a good name for it would be, as far as I know. Don't think anyone else even does it, even 8 years after she started) and the design of the environment/effects/whatever hers and whoever helped her create it. To so narrowly define art I'm sorry to say this comes off as callously pedantic to me. As if all art needs to start out as an original thought when we all know how much has been borrowed, if not directly copied short of lawsuit or malice, to create something new.
I know she does original work, but let's be honest. That's not what she's famous for. She's famous for cover stuff and it's her fame based on that that record label parasites wish to capitalize on.
 

John Keefer

Devilish Rogue
Aug 12, 2013
630
0
0
Adam Jensen said:
jamail77 said:
Adam Jensen said:
As much as I like her and I'm happy for her success I wouldn't call what she does real art. She's just using her skill to play music created by somebody else.
......She also plays original music. Quite frequently actually relatively speaking. I'm not sure how that slipped you by considering they mention record labels rejecting her then clamoring for her when she started doing well. Why would she approach record labels and they her after the fact if she didn't play original music, only covers? If record labels deal in covers, that's news to me, but then again I don't keep up with the music business all that well let alone how it works.

Even if she didn't play her own original music I would definitely consider covers art especially hers. I mean, if she's not changing the arrangement in some way she's adding something to it and if she's not doing that the dancing is most certainly her own (She practically invented violin dancing, or whatever a good name for it would be, as far as I know. Don't think anyone else even does it, even 8 years after she started) and the design of the environment/effects/whatever hers and whoever helped her create it. To so narrowly define art I'm sorry to say this comes off as callously pedantic to me. As if all art needs to start out as an original thought when we all know how much has been borrowed, if not directly copied short of lawsuit or malice, to create something new.
I know she does original work, but let's be honest. That's not what she's famous for. She's famous for cover stuff and it's her fame based on that that record label parasites wish to capitalize on.
The only reason I know her name is because of her cover of Radioactive with Pentatonix. I remember her as, "That midget mormon violinist". She's not bad, but she's not great either. There are a lot of really talented violinists out there who don't do music video covers of crap pop.
 

John Keefer

Devilish Rogue
Aug 12, 2013
630
0
0
UniversalAC said:
Adam Jensen said:
jamail77 said:
Adam Jensen said:
As much as I like her and I'm happy for her success I wouldn't call what she does real art. She's just using her skill to play music created by somebody else.
......She also plays original music. Quite frequently actually relatively speaking. I'm not sure how that slipped you by considering they mention record labels rejecting her then clamoring for her when she started doing well. Why would she approach record labels and they her after the fact if she didn't play original music, only covers? If record labels deal in covers, that's news to me, but then again I don't keep up with the music business all that well let alone how it works.

Even if she didn't play her own original music I would definitely consider covers art especially hers. I mean, if she's not changing the arrangement in some way she's adding something to it and if she's not doing that the dancing is most certainly her own (She practically invented violin dancing, or whatever a good name for it would be, as far as I know. Don't think anyone else even does it, even 8 years after she started) and the design of the environment/effects/whatever hers and whoever helped her create it. To so narrowly define art I'm sorry to say this comes off as callously pedantic to me. As if all art needs to start out as an original thought when we all know how much has been borrowed, if not directly copied short of lawsuit or malice, to create something new.
I know she does original work, but let's be honest. That's not what she's famous for. She's famous for cover stuff and it's her fame based on that that record label parasites wish to capitalize on.
The only reason I know her name is because of her cover of Radioactive with Pentatonix. I remember her as, "That midget mormon violinist". She's not bad, but she's not great either. There are a lot of really talented violinists out there who don't do music video covers of crap pop.
Yes, because doing covers of long dead classical and baroque musicians is so much harder and unique. Not to mention her actual albums sell perfectly well and she is one of the highest selling independents.
 

John Keefer

Devilish Rogue
Aug 12, 2013
630
0
0
ravenshrike said:
UniversalAC said:
Adam Jensen said:
jamail77 said:
Adam Jensen said:
As much as I like her and I'm happy for her success I wouldn't call what she does real art. She's just using her skill to play music created by somebody else.
......She also plays original music. Quite frequently actually relatively speaking. I'm not sure how that slipped you by considering they mention record labels rejecting her then clamoring for her when she started doing well. Why would she approach record labels and they her after the fact if she didn't play original music, only covers? If record labels deal in covers, that's news to me, but then again I don't keep up with the music business all that well let alone how it works.

Even if she didn't play her own original music I would definitely consider covers art especially hers. I mean, if she's not changing the arrangement in some way she's adding something to it and if she's not doing that the dancing is most certainly her own (She practically invented violin dancing, or whatever a good name for it would be, as far as I know. Don't think anyone else even does it, even 8 years after she started) and the design of the environment/effects/whatever hers and whoever helped her create it. To so narrowly define art I'm sorry to say this comes off as callously pedantic to me. As if all art needs to start out as an original thought when we all know how much has been borrowed, if not directly copied short of lawsuit or malice, to create something new.
I know she does original work, but let's be honest. That's not what she's famous for. She's famous for cover stuff and it's her fame based on that that record label parasites wish to capitalize on.
The only reason I know her name is because of her cover of Radioactive with Pentatonix. I remember her as, "That midget mormon violinist". She's not bad, but she's not great either. There are a lot of really talented violinists out there who don't do music video covers of crap pop.
Yes, because doing covers of long dead classical and baroque musicians is so much harder and unique.
Yes, exactly. Saying it sarcastically makes it no less true.

ravenshrike said:
Not to mention her actual albums sell perfectly well and she is one of the highest selling independents.
Yaaaay.
 

John Keefer

Devilish Rogue
Aug 12, 2013
630
0
0
UniversalAC said:
ravenshrike said:
UniversalAC said:
Adam Jensen said:
jamail77 said:
Adam Jensen said:
As much as I like her and I'm happy for her success I wouldn't call what she does real art. She's just using her skill to play music created by somebody else.
......She also plays original music. Quite frequently actually relatively speaking. I'm not sure how that slipped you by considering they mention record labels rejecting her then clamoring for her when she started doing well. Why would she approach record labels and they her after the fact if she didn't play original music, only covers? If record labels deal in covers, that's news to me, but then again I don't keep up with the music business all that well let alone how it works.

Even if she didn't play her own original music I would definitely consider covers art especially hers. I mean, if she's not changing the arrangement in some way she's adding something to it and if she's not doing that the dancing is most certainly her own (She practically invented violin dancing, or whatever a good name for it would be, as far as I know. Don't think anyone else even does it, even 8 years after she started) and the design of the environment/effects/whatever hers and whoever helped her create it. To so narrowly define art I'm sorry to say this comes off as callously pedantic to me. As if all art needs to start out as an original thought when we all know how much has been borrowed, if not directly copied short of lawsuit or malice, to create something new.
I know she does original work, but let's be honest. That's not what she's famous for. She's famous for cover stuff and it's her fame based on that that record label parasites wish to capitalize on.
The only reason I know her name is because of her cover of Radioactive with Pentatonix. I remember her as, "That midget mormon violinist". She's not bad, but she's not great either. There are a lot of really talented violinists out there who don't do music video covers of crap pop.
Yes, because doing covers of long dead classical and baroque musicians is so much harder and unique.
Yes, exactly. Saying it sarcastically makes it no less true.

ravenshrike said:
Not to mention her actual albums sell perfectly well and she is one of the highest selling independents.
Yaaaay.
Really? You're actually going with harder and more unique. I mean, for some pieces harder is certainly true, though not all, but more unique? Every violinist and their mother covers classical and baroque works. The number that genuinely try something original can probably be counted without taking your socks off.

As for her selling ability, she sells perfectly well when not producing covers, so while you may have written her off for being happy to do said covers, both her livelihood and abilities are no longer dependent upon them if they ever were.
 

Randomvirus

New member
Aug 12, 2009
89
0
0
It would be nice if she'd bother playing in venues that aren't crowded and cramped. Well at least in Boise. Her first tour year, she skipped Boise, second year came to the god awful Knitting Factory. It was crowded cramped, and other people were assholes shoving themselves in front of other people (my wife and I occupied one space and had to fight to keep taller assholes from getting in front of us).

I left that show just furious and pissed because of how bad other people were. She came back through again within the last year, and I think she played an equally crowded venue.

I know smaller acts do that so that they can "sell out" faster. But it's wholly inconsiderate of her fans, and she has tons of fans here.

Anyways, just venting, I like her stuff, even though the shows have left a sour taste from other people. Seems to me she could go a bit bigger...
 

noobiemcfoob

New member
Mar 18, 2013
25
0
0
Randomvirus said:
It would be nice if she'd bother playing in venues that aren't crowded and cramped. Well at least in Boise. Her first tour year, she skipped Boise, second year came to the god awful Knitting Factory. It was crowded cramped, and other people were assholes shoving themselves in front of other people (my wife and I occupied one space and had to fight to keep taller assholes from getting in front of us).

I left that show just furious and pissed because of how bad other people were. She came back through again within the last year, and I think she played an equally crowded venue.

I know smaller acts do that so that they can "sell out" faster. But it's wholly inconsiderate of her fans, and she has tons of fans here.

Anyways, just venting, I like her stuff, even though the shows have left a sour taste from other people. Seems to me she could go a bit bigger...
She comes through Raleigh and plays some of the medium sized venues. Her shows were crowded, but not in a "I can't enjoy this" kind of way. Live shows attract a crowd. Tis life.

Regardless, her live shows are amazing! Covers, original songs, none of it matters because she just *performs*, and it is gorgeous.
 

Dying_Jester

New member
Jul 17, 2014
302
0
0
McElroy said:
It's amazing how many people like solo violin. It has always been too squeaky for my taste.
Well, it all depends on the style/genre that's being played, I would think. Though as someone who has always had eyes on/ears for things like bass guitar, bass sections, cellos and double bass I will agree that, usually, violin is a bit high pitched for my tastes as well.