"Crowd Funding" your albums/projects

[MarkMgibson]

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.

I agree. As for the comment about digitally remastered records sounding better than the originals - bollocks! The digital stuff sounds better on cheap, nasty equipment (which is what it's generally played on), but play them on good quality Hi-Fi gear, the original stuff sounds so much better.

As for this "crowd funding" thing - I think it's generally a rip-off, as most of the bands break-up before anything actually gets produced. Still, if people want to do it, that's their choice.

[capncal]

Originally Posted by TRichardsbass

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.

Kevin Ratterman is the gentleman's name recorded our record. He is THE MAN in Louisville, KY if you want the best you can get. His prices are very reasonable for local folks. I like to think he made some serious hay recording for My Morning Jacket.

And perhaps it lost something when it got dumped into pro tools, but there is simply no comparison with the product we paid for, to the myriad self produced records going around right now.

We made a big boy record that we would not have been able to do had we not begged and pleaded with our friends, family and fans to help us out. Everyone did willingly and were very happy with our finished product. If someone donated a hundred dollars they got special mention on the CD liner notes and a copy of the record and a tee shirt. Everything else was just help us out. It was a once in a lifetime opportunity and we took it.

Ask your people for help, and they will provide. That's prob not gonna work of the next record, however.

[TRichardsbass]

Originally Posted by capncal

Kevin Ratterman is the gentleman's name recorded our record. He is THE MAN in Louisville, KY if you want the best you can get. His prices are very reasonable for local folks. I like to think he made some serious hay recording for My Morning Jacket.

And perhaps it lost something when it got dumped into pro tools, but there is simply no comparison with the product we paid for, to the myriad self produced records going around right now.

We made a big boy record that we would not have been able to do had we not begged and pleaded with our friends, family and fans to help us out. Everyone did willingly and were very happy with our finished product. If someone donated a hundred dollars they got special mention on the CD liner notes and a copy of the record and a tee shirt. Everything else was just help us out. It was a once in a lifetime opportunity and we took it.

Ask your people for help, and they will provide. That's prob not gonna work of the next record, however.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that "old school" techniques definitely yield an overall better product, as I know you saw how you really have to do your homework and put out your personal best in order to get it on to tape best.

My comments are really, again, based on the thought process I come across alot that to release a decent album requires oooodles of cash, which it does not. And in most of the crowd funding projects, its non-established bands.

Here is a video with a recording that was done with borrowed high quality microphones, direct to the PC. Took the band a couple of months to record and mix, part time, when they weren't working the day jobs. This was picked up by Subaru. Tell me, does the song sound like its not commercially viable, not release quality? All digital, all done by themselves, and they aren't sound professionals. I'm just using this to show what can be done with a very, very small investment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4a8UG8kAoI

Enjoy the video, this band is great.

Notice too, they did these bits in the wilderness direct into the computer.

[TRichardsbass]

Funny, this was just on the Seymour Duncan page today...

[bass12]

I'm curious - do you also think that artists who apply for government grants (taxpayer's money) are lazy beggars?

[pklima]

Originally Posted by bass12

I'm curious - do you also think that artists who apply for government grants (taxpayer's money) are lazy beggars?

Worse. With beggars you have the option to not give them any. Besides, I've played some EU-subsidized gigs. So completely useless I quit that band. Sure you can get overpaid for playing to a "crowd" of 10-20 people but you have to drive a couple hundred kilometers, possibly to another country, and it will be in the middle of the week.

I'm also looking at the kickstarter projects that people I know are spamming about on Facebook. One guy wants to raise $675 to do a solo tour in the US. Another keeps posting links to his cousin or something who wants $6000 to record a flamenco-jazz album. Yeah, right. I might occasionally give some money to somebody who's gonna spend it on cheap booze, but I sure as hell won't give any to somebody who wants to spend it on luxury status goods.

[bass12]

Originally Posted by pklima

Worse. With beggars you have the option to not give them any. Besides, I've played some EU-subsidized gigs. So completely useless I quit that band. Sure you can get overpaid for playing to a "crowd" of 10-20 people but you have to drive a couple hundred kilometers, possibly to another country, and it will be in the middle of the week.

I'm also looking at the kickstarter projects that people I know are spamming about on Facebook. One guy wants to raise $675 to do a solo tour in the US. Another keeps posting links to his cousin or something who wants $6000 to record a flamenco-jazz album. Yeah, right. I might occasionally give some money to somebody who's gonna spend it on cheap booze, but I sure as hell won't give any to somebody who wants to spend it on luxury status goods.

So how, then, does a society subsidize the arts? Do you expect that enough "concerned art-lovers" will make sufficient donations on their own?

[Bass_Pounder]

Originally Posted by bass12

I'm curious - do you also think that artists who apply for government grants (taxpayer's money) are lazy beggars?

Absolutely

[KCLRbass]

My band is just about to wrap up sessions for our crowdfunded double LP. Our budget ended up being about 60% crowdfunding and gov't grants and 40% self-funded through gigs and sales of our previous records. Ultimately, we had a budget that was about double our previous three albums combined.

Can having a bigger budget enable you to make a better sounding record? In my opinion, the answer is an unmitigated YES!!!

Don't get me wrong, we released a record this past summer that we recorded in one day, and we're really happy with it. Still, having the time and technology to truly craft every single moment of every song, having access to technology that enables you to get ANY sounds you want from any instrument, having the budget to hire external musicians (in our case a big band and strings section), etc. etc. All of this REALLY MATTERS! It is literally impossible to do what we're doing on a laptop in a bedroom.

We presented exactly this to our fans when we crowdfunded our record. There was no 'begging'! If the crowdfunding route failed, we would have found another way. But what crowdfunding did was it brought our fans INSIDE the creation of this record - they know that they're the reason it's happening. And because of their belief in us, we are doubly motivated to make sure that the record is the best thing they've ever heard.

When I see crowdfunding initiatives that excite me, I will nearly always contribute. This way, I know my support is going DIRECTLY toward the creation of new art (or technology, etc.), unlike when I buy music on iTunes or a record store.

I am, and my entire band is, so humbled by and grateful to our fans for what they've made possible.

[bass12]

Originally Posted by KCLRbass

My band is just about to wrap up sessions for our crowdfunded double LP. Our budget ended up being about 60% crowdfunding and gov't grants and 40% self-funded through gigs and sales of our previous records. Ultimately, we had a budget that was about double our previous three albums combined.

Can having a bigger budget enable you to make a better sounding record? In my opinion, the answer is an unmitigated YES!!!

Don't get me wrong, we released a record this past summer that we recorded in one day, and we're really happy with it. Still, having the time and technology to truly craft every single moment of every song, having access to technology that enables you to get ANY sounds you want from any instrument, having the budget to hire external musicians (in our case a big band and strings section), etc. etc. All of this REALLY MATTERS! It is literally impossible to do what we're doing on a laptop in a bedroom.

We presented exactly this to our fans when we crowdfunded our record. There was no 'begging'! If the crowdfunding route failed, we would have found another way. But what crowdfunding did was it brought our fans INSIDE the creation of this record - they know that they're the reason it's happening. And because of their belief in us, we are doubly motivated to make sure that the record is the best thing they've ever heard.

When I see crowdfunding initiatives that excite me, I will nearly always contribute. This way, I know my support is going DIRECTLY toward the creation of new art (or technology, etc.), unlike when I buy music on iTunes or a record store.

I am, and my entire band is, so humbled by and grateful to our fans for what they've made possible.

Yep, you definitely sound lazy. Congratulations on the record. Live strings are a beautiful thing - and way too rare in today's music.

[pklima]

Originally Posted by bass12

So how, then, does a society subsidize the arts? Do you expect that enough "concerned art-lovers" will make sufficient donations on their own?

Yeah, I think they will. But classic rock covers are too artsy for my liking, so my idea of "sufficient" is obviously not very high.

[MarkMgibson]

Originally Posted by KCLRbass

My band is just about to wrap up sessions for our crowdfunded double LP. Our budget ended up being about 60% crowdfunding and gov't grants and 40% self-funded through gigs and sales of our previous records. Ultimately, we had a budget that was about double our previous three albums combined.

Can having a bigger budget enable you to make a better sounding record? In my opinion, the answer is an unmitigated YES!!!

Don't get me wrong, we released a record this past summer that we recorded in one day, and we're really happy with it. Still, having the time and technology to truly craft every single moment of every song, having access to technology that enables you to get ANY sounds you want from any instrument, having the budget to hire external musicians (in our case a big band and strings section), etc. etc. All of this REALLY MATTERS! It is literally impossible to do what we're doing on a laptop in a bedroom.

We presented exactly this to our fans when we crowdfunded our record. There was no 'begging'! If the crowdfunding route failed, we would have found another way. But what crowdfunding did was it brought our fans INSIDE the creation of this record - they know that they're the reason it's happening. And because of their belief in us, we are doubly motivated to make sure that the record is the best thing they've ever heard.

When I see crowdfunding initiatives that excite me, I will nearly always contribute. This way, I know my support is going DIRECTLY toward the creation of new art (or technology, etc.), unlike when I buy music on iTunes or a record store.

I am, and my entire band is, so humbled by and grateful to our fans for what they've made possible.

Great sound, and great music. Congratulations.

[MarkMgibson]

Originally Posted by TRichardsbass

Don't get me wrong, I agree that "old school" techniques definitely yield an overall better product, as I know you saw how you really have to do your homework and put out your personal best in order to get it on to tape best.

My comments are really, again, based on the thought process I come across alot that to release a decent album requires oooodles of cash, which it does not. And in most of the crowd funding projects, its non-established bands.

Here is a video with a recording that was done with borrowed high quality microphones, direct to the PC. Took the band a couple of months to record and mix, part time, when they weren't working the day jobs. This was picked up by Subaru. Tell me, does the song sound like its not commercially viable, not release quality? All digital, all done by themselves, and they aren't sound professionals. I'm just using this to show what can be done with a very, very small investment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4a8UG8kAoI

Enjoy the video, this band is great.

Notice too, they did these bits in the wilderness direct into the computer.

I'm sorry, but play that on a good sound system, and it's not "release quality"; it's a good demo at best in my opinion. I'm not being nasty, but you asked if that song was "commercially viable", and my answer is no, it's not.

[pklima]

Hey, it's commercially viable enough for Subaru.

[foq1978]

Originally Posted by ShoeManiac

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?

+1

[KCLRbass]

Originally Posted by bass12

Yep, you definitely sound lazy. Congratulations on the record. Live strings are a beautiful thing - and way too rare in today's music.

Originally Posted by MarkMgibson

Great sound, and great music. Congratulations.

Thanks guys. I really appreciate the kind words. This record has been an amazing journey. Every day I get more excited for the day we can finally release it.

[MarkMgibson]

Originally Posted by pklima

Hey, it's commercially viable enough for Subaru.

Viable for what?

[TRichardsbass]

Originally Posted by MarkMgibson

I'm sorry, but play that on a good sound system, and it's not "release quality"; it's a good demo at best in my opinion. I'm not being nasty, but you asked if that song was "commercially viable", and my answer is no, it's not.

First, if I go by your standards, nothing the Beatles released before 1967 would be "commercially viable." Play any of the first five albums on a good system and they sound like poor demos as well. I mean, come on, mono? And "stereo" is music on one side, vocals on the other? Nothing the Rolling Stones, Kinks, Elvis, and many, many other legends did during that time would meet your standard either. Before about 1970 just about everything was produced using 4 track tape methods. And when you listen, it sounds like it.

Most of the latest hits were actually just self recorded and produced, what in the biz we used to call demos. I mean, "Fridays" by Rebecca Black and "Call Me Maybe" by Carly Jepson were done at small studios quickly. Most of the stuff on YouTube that goes viral and makes money was done on less then stellar equipment and in less then rock star production. And if a label picks it up, they rarely rerecord it.

Commercially viable means that it is worthy of radio airplay or on the medium of the day. And having some good production. I defy you to find any recording lately that sounds that much better on your super system. Hell, I own one of the best systems you can put together.

Also, I have been on a major label, have played stadiums and clubs all over the world. (Haven't been down under since 1989 though.) I also do studio work, and three songs I played on within the last five years have had some internet radio airplay. All three songs were quick tracks put down in home studios in less then three days, mixed and mastered on Pro Tools. They sounded just fine to the people who played them. And the songs were in radio rotation for a while. Therefore, commercially viable.

Also, in order to be used in a commercial, the quality of the recording actually has to be at least as good as for radio. The song those guys did was better them most of what is on commercial radio and commercials today.

You may not like what they do, but the example was there to show that you can do something that can be released and make you money with a very small investment.

As for crowd funding, I am glad some people posted because it gave me a different perspective, and it has to a small degree lessened my harsh though about it.

I also will never understand why so many people think it is that hard for a four piece band to save $1000 each to have money to make a very, very good EP including reproduction. You are talking saving $85 a month. You can easily record and produce some very nice CD's with $4K. So I don't understand why so many say that "without this, the music wouldn't get done." Which is what a lot of crowd funded projects say.

[MarkMgibson]

Originally Posted by TRichardsbass

First, if I go by your standards, nothing the Beatles released before 1967 would be "commercially viable." Play any of the first five albums on a good system and they sound like poor demos as well. I mean, come on, mono? And "stereo" is music on one side, vocals on the other? Nothing the Rolling Stones, Kinks, Elvis, and many, many other legends did during that time would meet your standard either. Before about 1970 just about everything was produced using 4 track tape methods. And when you listen, it sounds like it.

Most of the latest hits were actually just self recorded and produced, what in the biz we used to call demos. I mean, "Fridays" by Rebecca Black and "Call Me Maybe" by Carly Jepson were done at small studios quickly. Most of the stuff on YouTube that goes viral and makes money was done on less then stellar equipment and in less then rock star production. And if a label picks it up, they rarely rerecord it.

Commercially viable means that it is worthy of radio airplay or on the medium of the day. And having some good production. I defy you to find any recording lately that sounds that much better on your super system. Hell, I own one of the best systems you can put together.

Also, I have been on a major label, have played stadiums and clubs all over the world. (Haven't been down under since 1989 though.) I also do studio work, and three songs I played on within the last five years have had some internet radio airplay. All three songs were quick tracks put down in home studios in less then three days, mixed and mastered on Pro Tools. They sounded just fine to the people who played them. And the songs were in radio rotation for a while. Therefore, commercially viable.

Also, in order to be used in a commercial, the quality of the recording actually has to be at least as good as for radio. The song those guys did was better them most of what is on commercial radio and commercials today.

You may not like what they do, but the example was there to show that you can do something that can be released and make you money with a very small investment.

As for crowd funding, I am glad some people posted because it gave me a different perspective, and it has to a small degree lessened my harsh though about it.

I also will never understand why so many people think it is that hard for a four piece band to save $1000 each to have money to make a very, very good EP including reproduction. You are talking saving $85 a month. You can easily record and produce some very nice CD's with $4K. So I don't understand why so many say that "without this, the music wouldn't get done." Which is what a lot of crowd funded projects say.

You did ask, and of course it's always a matter of opinion. Nothing wrong with the music, but you'd get a much better sound in a studio, and I agree with your view that bands should save up 4 or 5 grand and go into a studio. As you say, it's hardly a fortune.

Perhaps my standards are too high. I have a decent home recording studio, and I often record demos for bands or singers that I like (usually for free), but I don't consider them "studio quality". Though perhaps that has more to do with my sound-engineer skills than with my gear.

I'm also not knocking modern technology - things like Youtube and Soundcloud make it possible for anyone to get their music out there; and I've heard some great stuff that I could never have heard 20 years ago.