Kickstarter / Bandcamp / etc - C or D?

more like max nagl etc

The name was almost too obvious...

Indeed.

I wanted to find a way to incorporate beer and bikes into this indie music blog that I had scheming in my helmeted noggin.

Might well have put some money in this if he'd called it "My Helmeted Noggin," tbh

can someone explain to me under what circumstances two separate people might have pledged $325 or more to make this happen?

1. mom
2. dad

3. Gonna need to see those "acoustic sessions" happen

I can't figure out whether kickstarter is about "niche fandoms have incredibly useful new way to fund projects" or "people who come from money have new more socially acceptable way to nudge similarly situated friends/relatives to fund their enthusiasms" -- must be some proportion of each but what are the proportions?

The first post was a review of the lovely Cambridge duo, You Won't, and their debut album, Skeptic Goodbye. To be honest, I was kind of starstruck upon receiving positive feedback from the band after the post- I was honored to be given such high praise for my work. I imagine this is how a musician feels when someone thoughtfully reviews their work. It was at this point that I knew the site could be something more than just my musings on indie music, bike news, and good beer.

lol

I'm sure there are people that use kickstarter to ask their parents for money.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45_iqB4RO34

Dear everybody,

On Wednesday morning Kickstarter was sent a blog post quoting disturbing material found on Reddit. The offensive material was part of a draft for a “seduction guide” that someone was using Kickstarter to publish. The posts offended a lot of people — us included — and many asked us to cancel the creator’s project. We didn’t.

We were wrong.

Why didn’t we cancel the project when this material was brought to our attention? Two things influenced our decision:

* The decision had to be made immediately. We had only two hours from when we found out about the material to when the project was ending. We’ve never acted to remove a project that quickly.
* Our processes, and everyday thinking, bias heavily toward creators. This is deeply ingrained. We feel a duty to our community — and our creators especially — to approach these investigations methodically as there is no margin for error in canceling a project. This thinking made us miss the forest for the trees.

These factors don’t excuse our decision but we hope they add clarity to how we arrived at it.

Let us be 100% clear: Content promoting or glorifying violence against women or anyone else has always been prohibited from Kickstarter. If a project page contains hateful or abusive material we don’t approve it in the first place. If we had seen this material when the project was submitted to Kickstarter (we didn’t), it never would have been approved. Kickstarter is committed to a culture of respect.

Where does this leave us?

First, there is no taking back money from the project or canceling funding after the fact. When the project was funded the backers’ money went directly from them to the creator. We missed the window.

Second, the project page has been removed from Kickstarter. The project has no place on our site. For transparency’s sake, a record of the page is cached here.

Third, we are prohibiting “seduction guides,” or anything similar, effective immediately. This material encourages misogynistic behavior and is inconsistent with our mission of funding creative works. These things do not belong on Kickstarter.

Fourth, today Kickstarter will donate $25,000 to an anti-sexual violence organization called RAINN. It’s an excellent organization that combats exactly the sort of problems our inaction may have encouraged.

We take our role as Kickstarter’s stewards very seriously. Kickstarter is one of the friendliest, most supportive places on the web and we’re committed to keeping it that way. We’re sorry for getting this so wrong.

Thank you,

Kickstarter

right on

Kind of odd that Kickstarter does not see the projects hosted on Kickstarter, since I thought you had to submit a proposal and stuff and for it to go through a selection process before it was approved.

the objectionable material was in a thread on reddit that was going to make up the primary source for the book and not within the proposal itself

not that the material wasnt douchey but if the new way to get funding is thru kickstarter and now its not going to not allow controversial speech/art/ideas then we're fucked tbh

yeah the reason it took so long for any kind of protest seems to be that the proposal made it appear much more benign (xp)

http://pitchfork.com/news/51526-universal-launches-crowdfunding-project-to-reissue-albums-on-vinyl/

that doesn't really strike me as "crowdfunding" so much as just gauging interest in advance to determine what to reissue? I mean Universal has the actual funds to do all of these, they just want to sell in advance so they don't overpress anything. Seems pretty smart, but if they sell it as a kickstarter-like venture I think it will just put people off.

well you have to pre-order so it's basically the same as far as the consumer goes right?

Cannot walk around a record store without tripping over a bjork boiphilia record

valleywag.gawker.com/kickstarter-project-canceled-after-dude-spends-all-the-912176282

The founders of Kickstarter told me, 'Spike, Kickstarter is for everybody.'

"...but it's especially for people who will give us a cut of the $1.25 million they're trying to raise."

http://gothamist.com/2013/07/25/spike_lee_defends_his_kickstarter_f.php

afaik spike lee has had a pretty hard time raising money in recent years, AND has been pretty generous with young/emerging filmmakers, and frankly, if he wants to do a kickstarter, he can damn well do so if he pleases

Not using your own money is kinda film fundraising 101. I can see why it's weird to fans but it's just how things are for most movie people, isn't it?

yeah...plus i doubt Spike is wealthy to the degree people might assume based on his level of fame. and it'd be stupid to just expect guys like him who don't make blockbusters but are famous to just self-fund movies til they go broke.

there is no way he's wealthy enough to self-fund.

i mean, there are very few people, particularly directors, who can just put a couple million dollars into a movie.

The number on the internet is Spike Lee is worth $40 million. Let's say he's worth half that, so only $20 million. Let's say he's worth half that, so only $10 million. In other words, sure, he could afford to chip in the $1.5 million he's asking for himself, even though he shouldn't. It's more irksome that he claims Hollywood won't fund his films because they feature black characters, forgetting that even everyone from Soderbergh to Spielberg have loudly decried how hard it is to get a movie greenlit given the current creatively bankrupt funding model. My guess is that Lee is having trouble raising funds partly because his track record is pretty erratic, not just in terms of box office but in terms of his often shitty movies. His docs have been pretty great, though, and his mainstream (or, fine, more white) movies have done OK (25th Hour, Inside Man); no idea how "Oldboy" will do. Point being, Lee has released a movie or two a year pretty much forever. HIs complaints sound a little bit like Prince complaining about record labels even as he manages to clog the world with mediocre product while selling out concert after concert.

where does that number come from? "one quarter of something i read on the internet" isn't really reliable math.

but even if all you say there is true: isn't that exactly WHY he should be kickstarting? what is the argument against it?

Lee has released a movie or two a year pretty much forever.

Great math bro

I meant that literally. Lee precedes us all.

http://whatculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/1-ENGINEER.jpg

Anyway, the $40 mil I got was from a google search of "what is Spike Lee worth" or something. I figure a fraction of a fraction of that, which was still generous.

There's no argument against Spike Lee Kickstater except that very few people seem to want to see Spike Lee movies.

Looking here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spike_Lee_filmography

There's not a year since 1986 without some Spike Lee joint or another.

there's 1987

and 1993, and 2007

the 'celebrity net worth' sites out there always seem to have wildly specious estimates based on the assumption that entertainers and athletes all invest wisely, signed nothing but perfectly fair contracts, and spend frugally.

setting aside what you think about Spike or the artistic potential of his future projects, it's pretty crazy that filmmakers who at their best deservingly command million(s) per film end up being told that they should be SPENDING that much to make a movie, not getting PAID that much. whether he has the audience to fund this particular movie, well, that's literally for the people to decide at this point.

Josh hates Math

It's also kind of funny that it's ok for random nobodies to ask for money for projects that might not ever see the light of day, but if a professional with a proven track record asks for money people get all offended by it.

Josh hates Math, Johnny hates Jazz.

It is a shame that Spike can't get greenlit. I'm not offended by the Kickstarter at all. Good for Spike. My point was just that the guy has kept plenty busy. We're not lacking Spike Lee joints with the exception of, fine, 1987, 1993 and 2007. Three years out of a little less than 30.

Also good for Spike for making me think, huh, what is Jim Jarmusch up to? The answer? A vampire movie! Filmed on location in Detroit, Cologne, Hamburg and Tangiers!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/dd/Only_Lovers_Left_Alive_poster.jpg/220px-Only_Lovers_Left_Alive_poster.jpg

The only thing Spike assured of his next movie is that it would be "not Blacula," but maybe he should reconsider.

would you please stop calling them joints

Spike's last wide theatrical release, Miracle At St. Anna, was 5 years ago. since then, he's done one limited/festival release narrative film, filmed a Broadway musical, and did 3 documentaries that aired on HBO, ESPN and ABC, respectively. and the closest he got to another big theatrical release was when he was shopping around a sequel of his last hit, Inside Man. that's not really the profile of 'guy who has no problem making the movies he wants to make.'

That's not really what I said. I said he's a guy who has no problem finding work, which means he gets paid. I mean, "one limited/festival release narrative film, filmed a Broadway musical, and did 3 documentaries that aired on HBO, ESPN and ABC" isn't bad for five years, is it? With the "Oldboy" remake a relatively high profile 2013 release? And "Oldboy" budget was $30 mil. I suppose Spike Lee might consider that mercenary work, but frankly, I couldn't imagine anything more mercenary than making "Inside Man 2."

I am so confused bc I don't even see where Spike complains. He complains a little bit about movie trailers. But he simply says he started to think of Kickstarter as a viable option for funding his own projects when his film students pointed out that other large projects (Braff, veronica mars) were funded. Is his use of Kickstarter for film funding equivalent to a complaint?

and someone like Spike doing a kickstarter makes more sense to me since a dinner reward with Spike actually has some value set by what his already established career means to the person kicking in the funding. When an unknown offers something like dinner for a ridiculous amount of funding, I'm always wondering who the fuck besides their mother would enjoy such a dinner.

It's also kind of funny that it's ok for random nobodies to ask for money for projects that might not ever see the light of day, but if a professional with a proven track record asks for money people get all offended by it.

― wk, Friday, July 26, 2013 2:55 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark

otm

I think the idea is that the proven track record means they've had a shot already, some success, vs. random nobodies, who are trying to circumvent a system that's mostly shut its doors to them. In the case of music (this being ILM) I suppose there's a stronger case to be made for musicians asking for money. The budgets are relatively modest to make a record, and there's been a demonstrable decrease in money to be earned from traditional record sales, because many of the same fans that might consider donating have also been downloading their records for free. This is less of the case with movies and TV. There is downloading and some degree of shrinking profits, but there's still so much stupid money in those fields, and the reason studios don't greenlight people like Spike Lee is not because they lack the funds but because they're so greedy they keep pushing all that money into fewer overinflated projects. Which of course becomes more of a risk the bigger the budgets and commitments get. So Spike, like Soderbergh, is right to be disappointed in the current model, but Spike, like Soderbergh, is worth untold multiples (whatever the amount) of the aforementioned random nobodies, which makes asking for money appear a tad unseemly, however well-intentioned. But if he can reach his goal (Soderbergh chipped in $10k) and keep things pretty transparent, then it could be really useful catalyst for those clamoring for a return to better days in studio-sanctioned indie film. Or an alternative to them.

Apologies if already mentioned, but Helen Marnie from Ladytron offering a used swimsuit as an incentive to donate to her album recording is some next-level creepiness/desperation.

http://www.pledgemusic.com/projects/marnie