"Crowd Funding" your albums/projects

[Mattosaur]

I think crowdfunding works especially well when the minimum pledge amount gets you the music recorded. In a sense, it's just a way to pre-order music in various packages. Some of the higher end rewards seem kind of dumb to me, but I've pre-ordered plenty of CDs/vinyl records/t-shirt packages from Kickstarter and haven't been disappointed.

It's only begging if there aren't any rewards attached. As a band, to successful use a crowdsourcing site like Kickstarter, you should be making sure you're giving people value. It's not a donation system--it's a pre-ordering system.

[TRichardsbass]

@Mattosaur, well, its not always a pre-ordering system. I have seen some where for $25 you get a liner note mention. No CD, no product. A liner note mention. However, yes, if the "rewards" are decent people will pledge. That is why I have. The J. Backlund Kickstarter will get me a Retronix Bass and if I call it a "pre-order", then its just below dealer cost. However, for companies like Backlund, they are hard goods manufacturers, meaning they make tangible products. If the reward for a $10 pledge says a dozen plectrums, then I get a dozen of something tangible. The tangible reward is something that is often nebulous in bands looking for album funding.

There is another local singer who is trying to fund her recording with "crowd funding." I forget, I think it was through Facebook and then her website. She has great pipes, but doesn't really have much appeal. She has been around for a while, but there are no major takers and she hasn't ever been approached by a big time promoter or agent.

But here are the details:


Contribute $10 or more Get a free mp3 song download and an autographed photo.

Contribute $25 or more Get everything above, free download of of "Window Pane" album.

Contribute $50 or more Get everything above, plus a download of "4th and Broadway" album.

Contribute $100 or more Get everything above, and an autographed copy of my "Window Pane" album

Contribute $250 or more Get everything above, a bottle of my favorite wine and I'll include your name in the liner notes on the new album! (must donate before duplication)

Contribute $500 or more Get everything above, and a front row reserved table for 4 at the album release party!

Contribute $1000 or more Get everything above, and a portrait painted by Eryn Shewell

Thanks again for helping make my dream a reality --

I hope my music gives you something that makes it all worth your while.

I'm not knocking on her personally, but she now says the album is complete but needs at least another $1500 do do the cds, artwork, etc. I believe the original "beg" was for $10,000, and I think that she actually made that amount. So she blew through that amount and still needs more.

Now, a reserved table at her release party? I know the venue. Not worth it, even if I was her lover. Bottle of her favorite wine? I know that too. I can get it by the case for about $8 a bottle. $250 and then I get a mention in the liner notes? A portrait painted by her? She's known for her singing, not her painting. See where this is going? While I don't know who donated, clearly some of them are, well, challenged, as nothing on this list at the price point tells me its even close to worth it. I mean, I give you $10, and all I get is one song? One song? That should at least include a download of a few songs or a CD. And ALL of the downloads you get for free are from albums/CDs she released in 2008 and 2009. So, you contribute to the new album, and you don't even get a copy of it in any form for "free". Think about that, you aren't even PREPAYING! You are paying her for old crap that she wasn't able to sell before, for 4 years. Oh, and I know where she recorded it and about how much total touch time it had, no where near $10,000. So you can guess what she did with the money.

I hope this makes my point. Its a beg when it comes to musicians and their albums. While I might be somewhat opposed to it, now that I see what people, like our now millionaire Amanda are doing, maybe its time for me to put a "crowd funding" request here on TB. There are several new basses I need. I promise that if you send me $5 I will record the basses and send you sound samples so you can hear what they sound like and then you can decide if you want those basses......

[TRichardsbass]

Originally Posted by bass12

To suggest that anyone with a rudimentary recording set up can produce a professional quality product is to suggest that the skills of an engineer are not part of what makes a finished recording sound "professional". While I can appreciate a lot about the DIY approach, I've never heard so many badly recorded and/or mixed records in my life as I have over the past few years courtesy of bands producing "professional" quality recordings in their basements.

Which, by the way, often wind up on radio, Pandora, et cetera. I am not knocking the value of a good sound engineer or professional. If you want beauty in the nuance, you MUST have them. However, Tonight Tonight by Hot Chela Rae really doesn't have that much going on to begin with. Gone are the days where you played the album a million times and then heard the single note of a triangle in a spot that makes the song but you never knew it was there. I mean, really, you couldn't make Gangnam Style in your bedroom?

Many of the crowd funded music is done at local studios for local artists, and the "sound professionals" normally are just the studio owners or some kid interning. Having made commercial albums and local albums, I think I know the difference and the value. I will put the quality of some of my quick demos recorded on my Zoom R16 and mixed/mastered on my Mac against most of them, and I think mine would win. Again, I am NOT devaluing the profession, nor how valuable a good engineer can make or break a recording. Just noting the fact that with the available technology today you can record most of the songs you want, at a radio quality output, for almost nothing.

Here is a good example. This Audi commercial is by my sometime songwriting partner Rich Andruska, formerly of the band Pete. Recorded in his house, using ProTools, a couple of decent vocal mics and a Zoom unit for some effects/pre-amp.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soJs3ZUYtLI

Clean, and well, if its good enough for the TV, its good enough for radio.

Again, this is more about my thoughts on "help, I have no money but want to be a musician with an album" mentality that is prevelant, and how it is fostered with crowd funding. Its not about you as a sound professional, nor about how much you have invested in making your home studio the best it could be.

[ShoeManiac]

You're leaving some very important things out of the discussion here, Tom. Most notably, CHOICE. It's the choice of the audience to decide whether or not they want to participate in a Kickstarter campaign from the start. The audience has free will and can make their own decisions. Some will choose to contribute, and most will not.

And what about the ones who do contribute? They certainly have the opportunity to judge whether or not their funding went to a worthwhile project. If the album is great and they love it, then it's good for everybody. And if the album falls flat with the audience? Then the artist is going to find it to be more difficult to find funding for a future project.

These are market forces at work. Perhaps they're not the ones you're accustomed to. But these are potential controls on who gets to make a record, and who doesn't.

[hernameisrio]

It kills me that people seem to think sampled and software drums will ever hold a candle to the real thing. They won't- ever. Can you fool your listeners? Sure, maybe. But IMHO, you're also selling them short.

So not only are you begging them for money to cover the cost of the "studio," but you're not even delivering quality worth paying for. At least that's how some will see it, in the worst case scenario.

[Mattosaur]

I think it comes down to there being a right way and a wrong way to do crowdfunding. Saying the entire thing is "begging" or that getting funding to help record or press a record seems silly to me. There are ways to do it with class that create a great experience for both your band and your audience. That's what's worth discussing, IMO.

Questioning whether or not this particular business strategy has merit is beside the point. It obviously does, and it's working for a lot of people who weren't having much success in the old paradigm. I think there's a lot of new ethical and strategic ground to cover on using a crowdfunding site to your advantage, but saying the whole idea is garbage is missing the point.

[TRichardsbass]

Originally Posted by hernameisrio

It kills me that people seem to think sampled and software drums will ever hold a candle to the real thing. They won't- ever. Can you fool your listeners? Sure, maybe. But IMHO, you're also selling them short.

So not only are you begging them for money to cover the cost of the "studio," but you're not even delivering quality worth paying for. At least that's how some will see it, in the worst case scenario.

Sampled drums never sound as good as real drums. However, for commercial music, lets call it Pop music, it is more than acceptable. The average kid or listening adult can't tell you if the drums are real or sampled, they can't tell you if the bass is a sample, a real bass or a synth. And lets not get me started with "house music" which is just a big ass tom being pounded, electronically, with some electronica around it.

The only people who give a crap are musicians like us, and audiophiles, most of which are our age or older and dying. I mean, when was the last time you saw someone super young going into a store to buy wall sized mylar speakers? Or who is investing in the perfectly matched set of columns? I mean, most kids and people don't even own a tuner/amplifier any more. Just an iPod dock or system of some kind.

I laugh when I see these new $1000 - $3000 dollar tube amplifiers for iPod systems. I wish I was smart enough to market them, but its silly. Once you have something completely digital (music that is also dynamically compressed too much) you cannot "warm it up" with tubes. No matter how hard you try.

So if you are making a commercial, professionally funded and marketed album or music, live drums is the only way to capture the force, but you must also record it in analog. You even lose some beauty of the drums recording them live but into digital space.

My point is though, that you can make commercially acceptable, listenable music that people will buy and play using software for drums and actually, using it for all the instruments. Which is why I invested in a Yamaha P-85 and a very good midi interface. If I want, I can just sit and hit keys and play guitar solos like Clapton.

All of the discussion about high quality mics, pre-amps, etcetera becomes very quickly null and void when you think about the fact that you mostly now record nothing analog nor do you play it analog. Yes, that killer Seinheiser will capture the perfect decay and snap of the snare, but you automatically lose, in most cases, a large part of the signal because its still digital. It is square waves, not smooth curves.

This is why live music at a club or bar can be an amazing experience. You can use the subtlety and nuance of analog, full sound to create emotion and feeling you cannot on any digital recording. You can't make a guitar cry or scream like you can live. Listen to any club music and it, while loud and pounding, is still sterile. Bruce Springsteens live sound is very comparable to his recorded music. Listen to Rosalita on your iPod or in your car on the way to the show, rocks, but missing something. Hear it live, full force, and it means something.

But enough ranting. I decry most music today, and still wish everything was recorded on tape and put to vinyl. But since it is not, then I have to face reality.

And the reality to me is that once you put any part of your music in a digital context, then a lot of the nuance is already suspect, and also that, in reality, with a program like Garage Band you can create whole albums full of music that labels will buy and publish untouched, and the listening audience won't care that you didn't use live drums or a sound engineer. Nor can the iPod audience tell if you used a $1500 dynamic mic or the Samson recording mic that came with your software.

So, back to my original point, the need for crowd funding, especially in the levels many are asking for, is not necessary. And it borders on full begging. And its a free US, so people can choose to throw money at whatever they want.

[TRichardsbass]

Originally Posted by Mattosaur

I think it comes down to there being a right way and a wrong way to do crowdfunding. Saying the entire thing is "begging" or that getting funding to help record or press a record seems silly to me. There are ways to do it with class that create a great experience for both your band and your audience. That's what's worth discussing, IMO.

Questioning whether or not this particular business strategy has merit is beside the point. It obviously does, and it's working for a lot of people who weren't having much success in the old paradigm. I think there's a lot of new ethical and strategic ground to cover on using a crowdfunding site to your advantage, but saying the whole idea is garbage is missing the point.

Good points, and like I said earlier, I don't decry all crowd funding. it is VC for guys who can't interest them. I get it.

I do have a question about something you stated though.
You say, "Its working for a lot of people who weren't having much success in the old paradigm." I am taking that to mean that you believe in the "old paradigm" you could only make a great record with oodles of funding and label or big backer. I'm also taking that to mean that the "old paradigm" of working, saving your money, doing your homework and investing yourself in the project no longer is valid.

If I can sit on my butt in my house and create commercially sellable music, using just my PC and software, I need much less funding then I needed in 1983 to record just a simple 5 track EP demo. And with the ability to sell your music directly online, to freely post YouTube video and submit to internet radio stations and get airplay easily, it costs nothing compared to what it cost me to manufacture and distribute an album I made in 1987, as that cost me not only the material costs, but marketing $$$$. Not only packets, but also payola. And also gas running from place to place begging to be in store bins, on radio playlists, et cetera. The distributor got a huge chunk. The label got their advance before I ever saw a penny (actually, I'm still waiting.)

Sorry, but if we were still making music and creating success in the "old paradigm" then I could see people needing to raise oodles of capital just for a crappy demo shot. But not today.

To this day Trent Reznor, the appointed god of all things "new music business" and the "new music paradigm" still, by his own admission, hasn't found a way to make money like he did under the "old paradigm." You know, the way he made all his money in the first place.

Yes, people are using crowd funding for many things, and it does work. Its a great way to raise capital for many projects.

I'm just always leery of it when used in the "help me make my album" construct. Unlike businesses with business plans, most bands don't last six months. And most of them making an album have no real chance of accomplishing anything other then making the album.

I mean, if I was to start a bass company and my plan was to sell basses that cost $5000, and I asked you for capital, wouldn't you want something more then just a T-shirt and a thank you note? And if I hit it huge, and make tons of money, wouldn't you want a bigger piece of the pie, seeing how I could never have done it without you?

Maybe that is the thing I'm missing. Somehow, everyone is happy if they contribute $5 to my cause, and its a success. Until I become a million dollar corporation, where I become evil and everyone thinks I should be giving everything I make to them.

Did I get something wrong?

[jugglingfreak]

Originally Posted by TRichardsbass

I'm also taking that to mean that the "old paradigm" of working, saving your money, doing your homework and investing yourself in the project no longer is valid.

I obviously can't respond for Mattosaur but, in my opinion, I don't think it means that at all. Saving your money, etc is still quite valid. Crowd Funding is just another tool.

I mean, if I was to start a bass company and my plan was to sell basses that cost $5000, and I asked you for capital, wouldn't you want something more then just a T-shirt and a thank you note? And if I hit it huge, and make tons of money, wouldn't you want a bigger piece of the pie, seeing how I could never have done it without you?

You might, I might, but the people who give them money obviously don't or they wouldn't give them money.

Maybe that is the thing I'm missing. Somehow, everyone is happy if they contribute $5 to my cause, and its a success. Until I become a million dollar corporation, where I become evil and everyone thinks I should be giving everything I make to them.

Success breeds contempt, that's nothing new.

[capncal]

my band paid $350 per day to record onto tape with some of the best microphones you can buy. the board used was 1971 API board. we recorded to tape, that was then dumped into pro tools.

the guy did our recording is the same guy recorded My Morning Jacket's latest record.

we begged and pleaded with our fans and family to get the money to record, master and produce 1000 cd's.

i'm damn glad we did. if you can do it, do it. there's a crap ton more work involved than you think. you cannot recreate real studio space on your laptop. you might get something good enough for a demo, but then half the time (probably more) folks that do home recordings like that do not have their product mastered.

did i like the initial idea of begging for money? no. but then again, if you don't ask, you don't get nothing. if your friends and family know how hard you work, they won't mind tossing in a few bucks.

the next record is going on vinyl, btw.

[Mattosaur]

Originally Posted by TRichardsbass

Good points, and like I said earlier, I don't decry all crowd funding. it is VC for guys who can't interest them. I get it.

I do have a question about something you stated though.
You say, "Its working for a lot of people who weren't having much success in the old paradigm." I am taking that to mean that you believe in the "old paradigm" you could only make a great record with oodles of funding and label or big backer. I'm also taking that to mean that the "old paradigm" of working, saving your money, doing your homework and investing yourself in the project no longer is valid.

I'll give you a specific example, since I don't think we're quite on the same page here.

I have a local friend who drums in a band that recorded an EP. They paid for the recording process themselves. So, they did part of it the "save your dollars" way. For the next step, however, they went to Kickstarter. They wanted to press a 7" vinyl record, and they didn't have the money to front the cost it would take to press copies of the record and then sit on stock while it sold. So they went to Kickstarter, explained what they were selling, and then said you could choose from three rewards packages.

1. Get a copy of the 7" on vinyl
2. Get a copy of the 7" on vinyl as well as a t-shirt
3. Get the 7", the t-shirt, and then digital copies of the band's entire catalog

You could give more than money than what the 3 reward scales were (and several people did), but essentially you were just guaranteeing you would order the record. This removes the risk of a big merch order that could end up sitting around forever, or the problem of boxes full of CDs that sit in your garage after your band breaks up. You order a run of vinyl that's pre-sold, plus a little more from the profit of the stuff you've already sold.

They were shooting for $500 to help pay for pressing the vinyl. They ended up with close to $900.

In the old system, you'd have to find a small time local label to front the cash to press a record, or you'd have to have the cash to do it yourself (and then you're risking that cash on the assumption that you can actually sell those records). This way, there's less risk to the band because the money comes from guaranteed sales, the fanbase gets to feel more involved (hell, they made the record possible), and everyone comes out happy.

It's not just about saving and investing in yourself, but learning how to sell your work and the experience of being a patron to your fanbase. I think it really requires a shift in mindset about what artists bring to the table and how that art is merchandized.

Do bands asking for thousands of dollars to record a ****** CD suck? Yeah, they do. And they suck even harder for offering ******** rewards like "name in the liner notes" or "meet the band". But they sucked before they crowdfunded. Crowdfunding just allowed them to suck in new and outrageous ways, just like it shelters the smart artist from the risk of investing his own money in every project without understanding whether anyone is actually interested in it.

I don't think risking your own money on a venture that is notoriously risky (recording music) has some virtue on its own. If there's a less risky way of doing it, why not use it? If no one is interested, your project won't' get funded, and no one is out any money. If people are interested, you get their support up front instead of putting it on your credit card or tapping into your savings.

[pklima]

I would quit any band that tried it.

[TRichardsbass]

Originally Posted by Mattosaur

I'll give you a specific example, since I don't think we're quite on the same page here.

I have a local friend who drums in a band that recorded an EP. They paid for the recording process themselves. So, they did part of it the "save your dollars" way. For the next step, however, they went to Kickstarter. They wanted to press a 7" vinyl record, and they didn't have the money to front the cost it would take to press copies of the record and then sit on stock while it sold. So they went to Kickstarter, explained what they were selling, and then said you could choose from three rewards packages.

1. Get a copy of the 7" on vinyl
2. Get a copy of the 7" on vinyl as well as a t-shirt
3. Get the 7", the t-shirt, and then digital copies of the band's entire catalog

You could give more than money than what the 3 reward scales were (and several people did), but essentially you were just guaranteeing you would order the record. This removes the risk of a big merch order that could end up sitting around forever, or the problem of boxes full of CDs that sit in your garage after your band breaks up. You order a run of vinyl that's pre-sold, plus a little more from the profit of the stuff you've already sold.

They were shooting for $500 to help pay for pressing the vinyl. They ended up with close to $900.

In the old system, you'd have to find a small time local label to front the cash to press a record, or you'd have to have the cash to do it yourself (and then you're risking that cash on the assumption that you can actually sell those records). This way, there's less risk to the band because the money comes from guaranteed sales, the fanbase gets to feel more involved (hell, they made the record possible), and everyone comes out happy.

It's not just about saving and investing in yourself, but learning how to sell your work and the experience of being a patron to your fanbase. I think it really requires a shift in mindset about what artists bring to the table and how that art is merchandized.

Do bands asking for thousands of dollars to record a ****** CD suck? Yeah, they do. And they suck even harder for offering ******** rewards like "name in the liner notes" or "meet the band". But they sucked before they crowdfunded. Crowdfunding just allowed them to suck in new and outrageous ways, just like it shelters the smart artist from the risk of investing his own money in every project without understanding whether anyone is actually interested in it.

I don't think risking your own money on a venture that is notoriously risky (recording music) has some virtue on its own. If there's a less risky way of doing it, why not use it? If no one is interested, your project won't' get funded, and no one is out any money. If people are interested, you get their support up front instead of putting it on your credit card or tapping into your savings.

When you put it that way, I understand. And that makes sense to me, and probably anyone.

They already recorded the stuff, but wanted to put it out in an obscure or unique way, and didn't want to do it unless there was money and demand. That's cool and yes, good business sense from the band. However if they wanted to do it anyway, the $500 or so they needed would be easy to save and raise. Also, the funding asked for is a pittance.

Unfortunately this type of project, in my experience, is the exception, not the rule. Like the example I gave, which I am sure the young lady copied from someone else.

But I see your point, so I'll back off the beg a bit, at least for projects like the ones your friends did. As for the ones like my young lady friend, well....

[jugglingfreak]

Originally Posted by TRichardsbass

However if they wanted to do it anyway, the $500 or so they needed would be easy to save and raise. Also, the funding asked for is a pittance.

Unfortunately this type of project, in my experience, is the exception, not the rule. Like the example I gave, which I am sure the young lady copied from someone else.

What difference does it make if it's $500 or $500,000? No one is holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to donate.

It really doesn't matter what the incentives are (album, album and t-shirt, etc.). If someone feels that it's worthwhile to send money to, they will.

If that don't, they won't send money. What is wrong with that? There's no kind of fraud or illegal activity going on.

Honestly, If a guy just posted something and said "donate money to me until I have $10,000". No product, no album, no incentives, just "send me money".

If people actually did send money, I'd say "good for him". (In fact, that example doesn't sound far off from televangelists.)

[TRichardsbass]

Originally Posted by capncal

my band paid $350 per day to record onto tape with some of the best microphones you can buy. the board used was 1971 API board. we recorded to tape, that was then dumped into pro tools.

the guy did our recording is the same guy recorded My Morning Jacket's latest record.

we begged and pleaded with our fans and family to get the money to record, master and produce 1000 cd's.

i'm damn glad we did. if you can do it, do it. there's a crap ton more work involved than you think. you cannot recreate real studio space on your laptop. you might get something good enough for a demo, but then half the time (probably more) folks that do home recordings like that do not have their product mastered.

did i like the initial idea of begging for money? no. but then again, if you don't ask, you don't get nothing. if your friends and family know how hard you work, they won't mind tossing in a few bucks.

the next record is going on vinyl, btw.

I am glad to see you had the old school experience of recording to tape. Lots of fun. Was it Tucker Martine or Rick Kwan?

However, the minute it got dumped digitally it automatically lost something. There are a lot of guys out there now who are doing this, and to me its just a fad, and if they tell you its better they are bulls*((*&ing you.

Take any "digitally remastered" recording by the Beatles or Zepplin and you will see that if you compare it to the original analog to vinyl. it will not pop, it will be, in a way, sterile. You can physically feel and hear the difference. I have seen too that many studios They are charging premium for the privilege to record to tape, which almost pisses me off more.

The playing media has changed so much that having the full studio space is not necessary. Music today is mastered and mixed to sound decent through a pair of ear buds or higher end built in computer speakers. You certainly don't need the quality you did in the olden days. When you do the dynamic compression, which ALL do, then nuance disappears. Which sucks. My point was though, that if you look at a lot of the crowd funding requests for people to make a record, they really ask for way more then is honestly necessary to make your typical self released recording.

I agree too, if you don't ask, you don't get, and well, if you get, better for you. I just have become quickly tired of the millions who are doing this. It is still routed, to me, in the thought process of why should I work when I can just beg thought process. Now, yes, times have changed and so has the though process, which spawned the Occupy Movement to nowhere, but I am still of the belief that you need to invest yourself in the project for it to really be successful, and that requires usually some of your own money.Otherwise it is "disposable" which many things in our society now are.

I am glad you had a great recording experience, and I hope it does well by you.

[DBCrocky]

Business ventures are risky. Musicians are sketchy. People are fallible. Suckers are everywhere.

[TRichardsbass]

Originally Posted by jugglingfreak

What difference does it make if it's $500 or $500,000? No one is holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to donate.

It really doesn't matter what the incentives are (album, album and t-shirt, etc.). If someone feels that it's worthwhile to send money to, they will.

If that don't, they won't send money. What is wrong with that? There's no kind of fraud or illegal activity going on.

Honestly, If a guy just posted something and said "donate money to me until I have $10,000". No product, no album, no incentives, just "send me money".

If people actually did send money, I'd say "good for him". (In fact, that example doesn't sound far off from televangelists.)

A wise man told me once, "Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD do that something."

I guess I'm just old school. While I do like the risk averse funding method, if you are that unsure of your talent or appeal, why would you make a record or project to begin with?

I mean hey, if I record something I have no real idea if anyone will like it. It either hits or it doesn't. So, if I'm investing my own time and money, I'm playing for success and keeps. Now, if I put out a pledge and its funded, I might make the record, but with no risk, if its a dud, so be it. I might lose fans, I might not.

Some would say its great that there is no pressure about money if you do it this way, and that you should be creatively free to make the best album on earth. Good in theory.

I'd personally rather have someone post several quick demo tracks and then get funding for me to clean them up and produce the actual release. Then, to the backer, there is much less risk. I'm still in the same spot, still have to write and record, and if it gets funded, all is good. If it doesn't, I know it sucks. But for most of the album projects I have no idea if it will even be in the same genre as last time. I mean if I said I"m looking to fund a project, and I'm a punk rock guy, and I get funded, and after its funded I decide to put out a classical music release, yes, the pledgers will get screwed but I'll have a release, and possibly have had some money to live on as well.

So that is where my head is at. I'm still grappling with this. While I like the fact that crowd funding does open up the possibility of some things getting made that otherwise wouldn't, I also struggle with the notion that why should it be made if it normally couldn't make it without crowd funding. Again, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Sort of like a Kardashian sex tape....

[Mattosaur]

Originally Posted by TRichardsbass

... I also struggle with the notion that why should it be made if it normally couldn't make it without crowd funding. Again, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

What's so magical about the normal way? Just because it worked for a long time, doesn't make it special or natural or the right way to do things. It's just the way it worked before technology made it different.

[ShoeManiac]

Boil this issue down to it's essence: we're talking about financing here. In the past you had a company in the form of a major record label as the financier. That model has fallen apart because of the inevitability of technology and the ability of the internet to trump traditional music distribution avenues.

We then saw independent labels provide lower levels of financing, but what appeared to be a viable avenue for artists performing on a smaller scale. That was the 90's model.

Crowd-funding is simply a step forward in financing. Instead of an artist having to beg a company for financing (and isn't pursuing a recording contract just that?), you've got an artist reaching out to their fanbase DIRECTLY for financing. This is just direct to the consumer. No middleman taking their cut along the way. What could possibly be wrong with this?

Now, I have seen plenty of appeals from artists I know who have pursued crowd-funding. Can those requests get repetitive, bordering on annoying? Absolutely. They've shown up in my social media feeds. Perhaps I've got a different level of patience with them than others? Perhaps it's because I can tune out those appeals? And sometimes I may even filter out their updates so that I see less of it. But I'm not going to begrudge an artist for trying to go direct to the consumer to finance their project.

And if it's not about financing, then what is this argument really about? Is it about having the old record company structure in place, with their A&R divisions essentially acting as gatekeepers for the listening public? Or is it about the fact that technology has made it far easier for ANYONE to make a record?

[TRichardsbass]

Thanks for the discussion guys. Puts some ideas in my head and a different perspective. Which is why I started the rant to begin with.