[hiya]

1. Yes. Backseat Goodbye, Jonathan Jones, Holiday Parade, The Audition, Sparks The Rescue. all we're campaigns for them to release new albums/EP. Also every single band exceeded their goal, with Sparks making double of their goal.

2. No, but I wouldn't be opposed to it.

3. Of course, as long as it was for the right reasons and with good intentions. If it was like a ultamatium it'd be a little off putting, but if the band was truly stuggling and actually trying, I'd probablt be inclined to give them more.

On another note, I would never donate to a band so they could tour. I think a record is one thing, you're getting something you will "use" over and over again and fall in love with(hopefully). If a band needs to raise money to tour, something just does not seem right there at all. Like what money is the band putting into the project themselves then? Plus you'd be donating money and then have to pay for a ticket to the tour seperately, it just seems shady to me.

[Tony]

Your poll question doesn't make sense. It's not a yes/no question.

1. Technically I've pledged money to several bands (not donated, as I received something in return every time), but I'll answer yes anyway: Gatsbys American Dream, The Riot Before, The Slackers, and Blue Scholars.

2. Nope. I did pledge to that One-Nine-Nine-Four movie that never got released, but that was still music-related.

3. Honestly, this situation sounds a bit too much like an ultimatum to donate money to them just to keep them going and not for a specific project, which to me is counter to what Kickstarter is good for. I probably wouldn't give anything to a campaign like that, no matter who the artist is.

[cowlord]

1. Nope

2. Nope

3. For sure, probably have to be TWY...hate to be that pop-punk guy, but they always put out quality stuff, and they seem like good dudes.

[domotime2]

Originally Posted by Tony

Your poll question doesn't make sense. It's not a yes/no question.

1. Technically I've pledged money to several bands (not donated, as I received something in return every time), but I'll answer yes anyway: Gatsbys American Dream, The Riot Before, The Slackers, and Blue Scholars.

2. Nope. I did pledge to that One-Nine-Nine-Four movie that never got released, but that was still music-related.

3. Honestly, this situation sounds a bit too much like an ultimatum to donate money to them just to keep them going and not for a specific project, which to me is counter to what Kickstarter is good for. I probably wouldn't give anything to a campaign like that, no matter who the artist is.

really? I feel like, yes it is an ultimmatum, but that's not neccesarily a bad thing. It's a barometer. It's basically saying... is it even worth it for us to make more music. Plus, it counter balances all the money that could be lost from illegal downloading. I think it's excellent for a band with any sort of fan base.

[x togepi x]

Totally against it in most cases except for in the case of emergencies or big expenditures (like overseas tours or something). have donated to people that weren't bands.

I just think it will inevitably lead to scenarios that can stifle creativity, for example say a band puts out a solid, well received debut record and then decides to kickstart their next one. they raise enough money to do so but then the question arises "how exactly can we progress in our sound?" I think a lot of bands may be less likely to innovate/progress in their sound because they'll be worried that they'll piss off the people that gave them money to record it. The fact that their fans gave them money could heavily weigh on the conscience of a lot of musicians who may feel pressured to give their fans what they want rather than what the band wants.

I also think it's way too easy to abuse. Get a band together, raise a ton of money, and then break up. Kickstarter does nothing to insure that the recipient of the money will a) actually do the project or b) follow through with the rewards. It's based on the honor system (or at least it was last summer). There are a lot of people who are assholes in successful bands who could screw over their fanbase in this manner.

[Brandon Allin]

1. No.

2. No.

3. New Found Glory, as much as I could afford.

[Box Car Racer]

1. Yes, Ace Enders.
2. No
3. The Wonder Years, I'd give them anything. As much as I could spare.

[Hereformusic]

1. Have you ever donated to a Kickstarter campaign? For what band?

Yes.For Gatsby's American Dream, The Graduate, the End of America, Matt Pryor, Dr. Manhattan, Tiger Tank, Vuvuzela, Poly Vinyl Records, Ace Enders and the Narrative.

2. Have you ever donated to a Kickstarter that WASN'T for something music-related?

No, but I have been tempted by some of the projects, just never remembered to go back and didn't have enough in time to offer.

3. A hypothetical: Imagine your very favorite band or filmmaker or whoever had a Kickstarter project to fund a brand-new record or movie. They either meet the goal for the Kickstarter or they break up / stop making films forever / whatever. Who is this band / filmmaker, and what would you donate to them? And feel free to get creative - your answer doesn't have to be a monetary figure.

As much money as possible. The most I gave for the above was $50 and only in I think one of the cases did I contribute enough to secure a good portion of the funding.

[M.Lee]

1. Yes. The Narrative, The Graduate, Sparks, Ace Enders, and Lacey's EP.

2. Yes, films, video games etc.

3. Of course.

[domotime2]

Originally Posted by x togepi x

Totally against it in most cases except for in the case of emergencies or big expenditures (like overseas tours or something). have donated to people that weren't bands.

I just think it will inevitably lead to scenarios that can stifle creativity, for example say a band puts out a solid, well received debut record and then decides to kickstart their next one. they raise enough money to do so but then the question arises "how exactly can we progress in our sound?" I think a lot of bands may be less likely to innovate/progress in their sound because they'll be worried that they'll piss off the people that gave them money to record it. The fact that their fans gave them money could heavily weigh on the conscience of a lot of musicians who may feel pressured to give their fans what they want rather than what the band wants.

I also think it's way too easy to abuse. Get a band together, raise a ton of money, and then break up. Kickstarter does nothing to insure that the recipient of the money will a) actually do the project or b) follow through with the rewards. It's based on the honor system (or at least it was last summer). There are a lot of people who are assholes in successful bands who could screw over their fanbase in this manner.

i think you raise a lot of valid points. And i think it depends...and i think its a lesson learned type thing. For instance i just donated to a band called TAT...and I'm not really all that pleased with the album so i probably wont donate to the next one....and that's the price they pay for having a kickstarter program....

but after listening to what i'm writing i see your point. bands will try to please the "all ready paid" fan-base, and will fear trying anything new. Hmm...its a good point, i'll have to think about it. I just think of it as a decent alternative to the system we have now.

[8SlicesOfPie]

1. Yeah, for The Eastern Sea, Grand Child, Driver Friendly, The Devil Whale, and Arrange
2. Nah, but I'm thinking about donating to Double Fine for that game if I get some extra cash.
3. Definitely. Even if it's not a "we'll break up if not" situation. I donated $100 to both The Eastern Sea and Driver F because they're local bands whose members I know and whose music I absolutely love.

[KenneyBN]

Poll question is worded really awkwardly.

Kind of like that sentence I just wrote

[kazuma_ootaro28]

1. Yes. Winterpills, Water & Bodies, Polyvinyl Records.
2. No.
3. If Thursday had considered using this before hanging it up last year, I would've pledged. At least a reasonable amount, not above $100. Unless if it's something really sweet or worthwhile, then I would have to really think about it.

[kyle is hk]

1. Yes. Everyone should consider donating to Arrange

2. No but I'm not opposed. I browse the gadgets section a lot looking for good stuff. Almost donated to a few iPhone accessories.

3. If the National somehow needed the funds I would without hesitation donate a fiscally irresponsible amount of my money.

[x togepi x]

Originally Posted by domotime2

i think you raise a lot of valid points. And i think it depends...and i think its a lesson learned type thing. For instance i just donated to a band called TAT...and I'm not really all that pleased with the album so i probably wont donate to the next one....and that's the price they pay for having a kickstarter program....

but after listening to what i'm writing i see your point. bands will try to please the "all ready paid" fan-base, and will fear trying anything new. Hmm...its a good point, i'll have to think about it. I just think of it as a decent alternative to the system we have now.

yeah it's really a double edge sword. you get the money, but at what cost?

there are certain things i think the site could be cool for. For example, say a band got a really cool touring opportunity before they had a van, kickstarting that makes sense to me because vans are expensive and you can't necessarily expect every member of the band to be able to pony up the cash for that. I'm also a big fan of the "we have an album and we want to put it out on vinyl" kickstarter because it helps bands/labels figure out if there's really a market for that album being out on vinyl rather than spending over a grand and having a ton of unsold records in someone's house.