Do you think bands are taking advantage of kickstarter?

[taylo234]

^ I agree. There are valid points on both sides. I get the whole "you don't have to pledge", I know that. It's just the principle that bothers me. People would bitch a lot more if a bands webstore had a $30 LP then if it was on kickstarter. I see where you guys are coming from, it's not just $30 for the LP, but to help them record and support their art. But essentially, isn't that the same thing as buying it from a webstore? I'd assume a lot of what you buy on their webstore goes to them to help them pay off their recording dues and will help them go positive in the long run financially, right? Kickstarter just seems to be skipping the step of actually having to, for lack of a better word, "earn" their studio time. 

 

And for the record, i've recorded dozens of local bands, a few for free and people who have paid. The people who paid put in a lot more effort to make it sound the best they possibly could. I'm not saying it's the perfect analogy, but I feel like you'd make the best possible record you could if you put in your own money and ran the risk of not earning it back, then it already being paid for. Again, that's just how I'm looking at things, we all have different opinions!

[chamb117]

PBS and many museums are non-profit/not-for-profit organizations. bands are for-profit ventures. a stark difference. you donate to PBS and museums for being vehicles that distribute art, but you do not donate to artists themselves in this context. you pay for their art once it has been created (unless it is contracted, personal, etc.). such is not the case with kickstarter. also, an organization's for-profit or non-profit status can completely change how someone perceives/interacts with it.

[Shitty Rambo]

It's like you guys have never heard of the concept of arts patronage. That's essentially what Kickstarter is becoming in the realm of music. People donate thousands of dollars a year to keep "fine arts" like orchestras, choirs, etc. functioning; this is just a more pop-culture-geared form of arts patronage, similar to how you might donate $100 to PBS and only get a tote bag in return. You're not paying for the tote bag; you're paying for the appreciation and hopeful continuation of the art that person/company is creating.

 

There's no need to be condescending, we are having a gentlemen's discussion, but I see what you're implying. I'd argue that if you want to treat the momentary extension as a donation then that amount of money should be considered tax deductible. Regardless if it's $20 or $2,000.

 

Now I know realistically $20 isn't a lot of money, and if we are going to consider limited edition hoodies and t-shirts 'art' then that's a completely unrelated discussion which holds the same amount of water as that old, 'It's my money and I'll do what I want with it' chestnut that gets tossed around often. Not all backing "rewards" include any actual form of music, just merch. I think users here are more disappointed that artists are overly employing the crowd-funded application rather then taking any risks themselves. When a label does this it is, for a lack of better words, gross. That's not how a business should/can operate. If the overall project flops, the "investors" take the hit. Not the label. Not the band. Almost identical to what RJ did with TOYPAJ, except by using Kickstarter you're essentially agreeing to a "I know I can't get a refund no matter what happens once this is fully funded," term of service.

 

Now I've personally backed two Kickstarter projects and both were music related. I absolutely do not feel cheated or used, but I'm also not oblivious to the other side of the coin.

 

To quote the great Colin Moriarty - "Kickstarter project(s) would be an actual revolution if they offered profit sharing and dividends on heavy investment."

[scottheisel]

There's no need to be condescending, we are having a gentlemen's discussion, but I see what you're implying. I'd argue that if you want to treat the momentary extension as a donation then that amount of money should be considered tax deductible. Regardless if it's $20 or $2,000.

 

Now I know realistically $20 isn't a lot of money, and if we are going to consider limited edition hoodies and t-shirts 'art' then that's a completely unrelated discussion which holds the same amount of water as that old, 'It's my money and I'll do what I want with it' chestnut that gets tossed around often. Not all backing "rewards" include any actual form of music, just merch. I think users here are more disappointed that artists are overly employing the crowd-funded application rather then taking any risks themselves. When a label does this it is, for a lack of better words, gross. That's not how a business should/can operate. If the overall project flops, the "investors" take the hit. Not the label. Not the band. Almost identical to what RJ did with TOYPAJ, except by using Kickstarter you're essentially agreeing to a "I know I can't get a refund no matter what happens once this is fully funded," term of service.

 

Now I've personally backed two Kickstarter projects and both were music related. I absolutely do not feel cheated or used, but I'm also not oblivious to the other side of the coin.

 

To quote the great Colin Moriarty - "Kickstarter project(s) would be an actual revolution if they offered profit sharing and dividends on heavy investment."

 

Whoa, not really sure where I was condescending in that last post, but I guess if you say so, sure.

 

The point made earlier in the thread about non-profit vs. for-profit is a valid one, although I can tell you the members of the Cleveland Orchestra make a shit ton of money each year, waaaay more than I make in my "for profit" job, and their salaries are paid for by corporate underwriters and arts patronage. Hell, they even went on strike the other year to get a wage increase, which kind of blew my mind.

 

EDIT: I guess the point I'm trying to get at is making music at most levels is more or less a non-profit venture. The odds of you being able to sustain yourself at a fair income level strictly by the selling of recorded music and the touring in support of said music is extremely unlikely. I'm willing to bet Kevin Devine's yearly income is probably under the official poverty line. Geoff Rickly from Thursday once did an interview with AP where he said he made something like $8,000 one year, and that was when Thursday was touring practically full time. There is no money in creating music anymore except for a very select few. So if my $25 pledge helps Chris Conley pay for studio time to make the new Saves The Day record and guarantees me a vinyl copy of it when they're finished recording, I'm okay with that. I'm a patron of the arts that I like.

[scottheisel]

Tangent: Could a band file for a 501©(3) non-profit status? Any legal beagles post on here that could explain this?

[BuzzersonKillwell]

Whoa, not really sure where I was condescending in that last post, but I guess if you say so, sure.

 

You weren't the FIRST time. (winky emoticon thing)

 

I feel like this is an extension of the same argument we have every time an entity (tech or otherwise) lowers the barrier for entry, especially for something arts related, which seems to get people particularly riled up.

 

Making things easier means more shit to pan to find gold. It'll find equilibrium eventually. 

[tomfiend]

If Brand New do a kickstarter for their new album they could make sooo much money. 

[Guest]

If Brand New do a kickstarter for their new album they could make sooo much money. 

 

 

i would say at least $20k went to kevin just because jesse's name was attached.

[turnstiles]

I think Simon Joyner's last kickstarter was really cool, and same with Murder By Death's. If the prizes are cool and people love the bands I think there's nothing wrong with it. 

[firefoxUSSR]

i would say at least $20k went to kevin just because jesse's name was attached.

 

That was awful.... I'm not a huge KD fan... this sours my opinion of him.  

 

I'd like to see Kickstarter for other things like... Major label neglected to put out a well-mastered copy of "multi-platinum release" and they've agreed to remix it proper for money.  I would pay for influence any day.

[Guest]

That was awful.... I'm not a huge KD fan... this sours my opinion of him.

I'd like to see Kickstarter for other things like... Major label neglected to put out a well-mastered copy of "multi-platinum release" and they've agreed to remix it proper for money. I would pay for influence any day.

What the fuck do you mean it was awful? The guy wanted to fund TWO albums. People simply responded.

[dreamover]

i just wish i invented kickstarter. those dudes is rich.

[danaisalright]

kickstarter is an interesting notion as a work-full-time, part-time-artist.

I just released my album on tape (see my sig) and i've been told to try using kickstarter to put the recordings out on a record.

on ONE hand, kickstarter does just seem like a panhandlers dream. but on the other hand, I can't afford to put this out myself, I don't play out (I record everything solo and don't have a backing band), I have a full time job, own a house, etc, so it's very hard to attract any sort of interest in funding this any other way.

I do want people to listen to my art, and I'm fully aware I can't sustain myself on it, or even afford to fund a non-defunct physical media version.

Kickstarter seems like an attractive way to make it possible to release art that I'm proud of on a record, which would otherwise be impossible...

I haven't dove it yet, but I've definitely been thinking pretty heavy about it.

 

It's the Bjork kickstarter that really rubbed me the wrong way. She wanted 375 thousand pounds to port an iphone app to android.

holy. shit.