...I really don't get why Slog seems so down on the Jill Sobule thing. In case you haven't noticed, she's not a millionaire like Radiohead and NIN are, and, um, it takes money to make a record. It's not like she's gonna get rich off this or anything -- it'd just be nice if she didn't go in the hole, either, y'know?

I'm also puzzled by the disapproval of Sobule's tactic. Regardless of what you think of her music, how could it not be a good thing for an artist's fans to provide the funding to make a record ahead of time? Who is the loser in this scenario?

i think it's icky because it seems a little like Televangelism or a pledge drive for a private interest. I'm not saying i think Jill is a bad person, i just think it's kinda tacky.
in addition, i don't understand why she needs $75,000. is there any accountability for how she's allocating that money? i guess if her fans don't care, then i shouldn't either. but if she's not Radiohead or NIN, why does she need so much money to put out a record? if the White Stripes could track "Elephant" for under $10,000 then she can certainly do the same. even with manufacturing costs and a modest marketing budget, that number should be well below $75,000.
coming from a music scene where artists finance their own records ALL THE TIME, i simply don't understand why someone of repute would force her fans to act as investors. again, it's just my opinion, but i think it's kinda lame.

The total budget for an album is more than the studio tracking costs, and the White Stripes don't have to hire a band of session guys to play on the album--they're self-contained. Sessions musicians cost hundreds of dollars per session, so you can have a couple of thousand dollars every day, spread over the course of a few weeks of tracking. Mixing, mastering, artwork, promotional costs, tour support--all of these things can be considered part of the album "budget", and $75K for all of that (which can represent the work of many people over the course of a year) doesn't seem out of bounds. Sure, there are plenty of enjoyable local albums which are recorded, mixed, mastered and duplicated for a fraction of that price, but that's not the level that Sobule is working at, six albums into her career.

henrik schwarz was robbed in the dj album of the year category. his dj kicks edition is a classic. the later live album is pretty choice too.

Tiktok, you have made some completely valid points. again, if her fans are comfortable with the scenario, then more power to her. no harm, no foul. i personally don't like the tactic. but this is coming from a guy that already thinks most of the music industry business is pretty icky.

My line of reasoning is that someone claiming they need or warrant $75,000 to make a record should be in a position where they can self-finance their record instead of asking their fan base to front the costs. Based on my experiences with record labels, an overall budget of of $75,000 would be appropriate for an artist whose sales for an album hover at about 30-40,000 units. that's about how many copies the last Animal Collective record sound-scanned. if Animal Collective said that they weren't gonna put out another record unless their fans raised $75,000 on the front end, i would definitely describe the tactic as "icky". those dudes generate enough revenue that they should be able to assume the financial risk of financing their own record without having to make their fans foot the bill.

the record industry is definitely evolving and there are a lot of opportunities for artists to circumvent other "icky" aspects of the business. i certainly applaud any artist who decides to operate independently of a big record label. while Sobule's plan is certainly novel and interesting, i wonder how people would feel if the practice became the norm. what if Wilco decided they weren't going to put out another record until their fans coughed up a couple hundred thousand dollars? i would tell Jeff Tweedy to eat it; i've already given the dude enough of my money. i don't need to bribe him into putting out another album.

We're just going to have to disagree on this, because as far as I'm concerned, the Sobule model is a great idea, providing the artist in question accurately gauges how much money they can raise from their fans and that they always deliver the album in a timely manner. I'd happily front any artist I enjoy whose working outside the label support system $20 for their next album. I give them $20, they send me a CD made on their terms within 12 months. And in fact, I've done that several times and frequently pre-order CD's months in advance of the release date. I've ordered concert tickets for shows that happened months later, so the difference between "pre-ordering" and "fronting the money for the project" become somewhat academic.

The artists I'm interested in aren't selling more than 150K and often a third that, so the question of whether they should assume the risk or if 3750 of Jill Sobule's fans want to send her $20 each is moot as far as I'm concerned.

And regarding your example of Animal Collective, if they sold 40K of their last album and netted $5 per unit, that's a mere $200K to split four ways (minimum--assuming there's no manager or lawyer getting a percentage) before taxes. It's not much, so I hope they're raking it in on tour and don't have families or a medical emergencies or anything like that. Again--if fewer than 4000 of their fans can pay a slight premium for their next CD in advance, I don't see anything at all "icky" about this.

Tiktok,
i don't have a problem paying in advance for a product that's already been made. i have preordered records too. i know the artist and their backers have already assessed the risk involved in the venture of putting out a record and gone ahead with production. but unless it involves coffee or fast food, i don't really like the idea of paying for a product before it's even made.

perhaps i have such an issue with this scenario because it reminds me of a similar case a few years back with the band Hey Mercedes. over the course of several years, they somehow managed to build up a significant amount of debt. based on what i've heard from people who knew the band personally, this financial situation was due to the band's abnormally high overhead when it came to touring. a band that can only pull in between 75 to 100 people in a major market should be touring in a van, not a nightliner bus with an extensive road crew. aside from the $1000+ a day spent on the bus rental and driver's wage, they had to factor in paying all the crew and the general expenses that go along with any tour. it's no wonder the band was teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. so they set up a PayPal account where fans could donate to the band. the "deliverable" was simply that the band wouldn't break up (which they did a few months later). i thought that was pretty icky. why should the fans feel obligated to pay for the band's financial mismanagement? nobody owes Hey Mercedes or Jill Sobule a living as musicians.

the Sobule model is obviously a different scenario, but not by much. i'm more than happy to support my favorite bands by buying their records, going to their shows, and buying their merch. i would even donate money to a band that fell on hard times outside of their control (health issues, van accident, stolen gear, etc.). but to finance their next venture... i don't know... it just doesn't seem like that's my responsibility as a fan.

i'll give credit to Sobule that it's a clever move. she obviously doesn't have anything at stake financially for this next record. but while i'm sure she doesn't have $75,000 just lying around the house, i'm willing to bet she could easily generate that kind of money through the combined royalties of 6 albums, publishing revenue, merchandising, and concert sales. i hate to keep coming back to Animal Collective, but since they seem to be the closest approximation of her popularity they serve as a pretty handy measuring tool. if that band could sell out Neumos at $20 a head (as they did their last time through Seattle), that means approximately $15,000 coming in through the door. even if the band only walks out with half of that, a full U.S. tour, combined with merch sales, would certainly put them in a position to comfortably finance their own record without even taking publishing and royalty revenues into consideration. granted, without much in the way of real numbers, this part of the argument boils down to speculation. but Sobule is managing to nullify the issue of what she can afford and what she's worth as an artist by simply passing the financial burden of making a record on to her fans. there isn't even any accountability for how the money is spent. it's certainly a smart move on her part in that regard.

again, i'm not saying that Sobule is reprehensible, unethical, or straight-up shitty. i just don't think it's the most admirable way of doing things. imagine this exact same article, except swap Jill's name with someone less cute and wholesome. how about a band like Buck Cherry? wouldn't you want to roll your eyes and say "jesus, can't these jokers pay for their own damn record?"

just a thought....

No, I don't care at all if some band I don't like has a fanbase that'll front them the money for their next album.

If Limp Bizkit wants to ask whatever's left of their fanbase for a hundred grand so they can record their next album because they've squandered all their money, it comes down to the fans and the band. If the band's really willing to say "Hey, if we don't get the money from you then sorry, that's it--no more albums, we're out of ideas and opportunities!" Then, great (and in the case of Limp Bizkit, hallelujah). And if the fans are willing to give the band the benefit of the doubt, then it's a deal between them and the band. The value that I personally assign to the artist or their work is completely irrelevant. The bands are doing something akin to a company asking for investors to buy stock, except in this case the specified potential payback is one CD. Any investment has risk, but I'd be quite surprised if Sobule doesn't make good on delivering the goods in a reasonable timeframe. Again, one frequently pays for concert tickets before the band's even gotten on the tour bus. Money paid for work not yet done. If you find the idea of raising money for a venture by asking investors (fans) to risk a small amount, then again, we differ: I accept capitalistic practices at that level, and perhaps you don't. In this era of indie bands willingly licensing their music for commercials and whatnot, the world must look pretty "icky" to you.

I'm far more irked by reading yet another band posting that all their gear was stolen on tour from their van which was parked in a "really secure parking lot" because they were too lazy to unload into their rooms each night. I can't recall EVER hearing about a band that had their gear stolen from inside their hotel room or friend's apartment while they slept (and yes, I've done that pain in the ass chore myself--no gear stolen yet). Yet, this keeps happening, with the inevitable requests for someone to help them out by lending them gear and perhaps a benefit show to raise money to purchase replacements. Why should I help them recover from their indolent foolishness? The answer could only be because I like their music that much, which is same reason that the Sobule funding plan is not "icky".