There always have been and always will be bands that are crappy. I’m totally guilty of having played in bands that would fall in that category. They are essentially harmless, and even if they raise $1.2 million, there is absolutely no evidence stating that they are taking money away from a band I would suggest is more deserving (again, entirely subjective).

I believe that there used to be a darwinian-like-natural-selection to local bands. They’d either gain momentum or peter out very organically. I’m not so sure such a mechanism is in place anymore. I find this troublesome, and I would strongly suggest that this ultimately leads to a whole bunch of disparate acts preciously masturbating in their bedrooms when they should be out and polyamorous. But then again, I’m getting old. And while I don’t find my straight job fulfilling, I like that I’m not living my dream bankrolled by friends’ and family’s straight jobs.

Hey Ryan! I appreciate your opinion on this and it raises a good point that there are a few things to consider.

When you say that “small markets suffer”, I assume you are talking about some aggregate amount of quality. There will always be examples of exactly what you are talking about: bands/musicians who don’t take the time to improve their craft.

As annoying as that may be, I haven’t seen any quantifiable evidence that points to that (but if you have, send me a link!)… just anecdotal evidence which, though true, doesn’t prove some industry-wide slip in “quality” per se.

I think both sides of the distribution have to be considered. My guess is that crowdfunding doesn’t discriminate… It will work for whatever the market will bare whether a project is shitty, average, or flippin’ amazing.

In the aggregate, I think it will bring about shitty, average and flippin’ amazing projects.

So, any “ethical” consideration of music crowdfunding isn’t really a discussion of the crowdfunding mechanism and marketplace, it’s more a discussion of how individual musicians use it. That is the point I was trying to make.

This is no different than any other marketplace, whether it’s used cars, health insurance, Big Macs or anything else. You can always find examples of people on the wrong side of the fence. But that doesn’t vilify an entire marketplace.

I’m guessing that the ethical considerations you speak of start on the individual side of things and you are worried about how that will aggregate up and dilute the quality of the market.

Your observations of specific projects are accurate, I’m sure. But I’m not sure we have any real evidence that crappy or unscrupulous musicians are somehow harming everybody by producing less-than-ideal quality music.

It is unethical and flat-out lazy for a musician to sell an idea rather than a realized product–especially at such a marked-up rate. I don’t say this out of respect for their fans; I say this because small markets suffer from this paradigm shift. Working hard, developing your craft, and playing out as much as possible are qualities that make good musicians. However, these qualities seem increasingly irrelevant. Now clubs, pandora, and spotify don’t feel the need to pay musicians a decent rate because their skills are devalued. There is no economic incentive to become a better musician. How can music advance when begging is preferable to earning?

cool!