The artist will only release if a certain threshold is reached.. Then the released music is completely "free" to share as people please. The artist is compensated as they see fit - they set the price in the first place, and also can use it to justify part of the price (to compensate for recording, hosting etc.).
"Piracy" then serves to generate rep to prove that they can deliver on future releases, there can still be people who make money in the middle - generating PR for the project etc.
The platform could take a small share of the cost, a slightly larger share for hosting, slightly more for promotion on the front page..
It would probably work pretty well, if the artist can prove himself in a short video, and then ask for money so he can make a music video and do it all with more professional equipment.
Why would they want to do music videos? A music video is just an add, which just happens to cost more than the product to produce, and is entertaining enough that people actually watch them. People watch informercials too.
Nobody buys their favorite music video (unless it's The Wall). They buy the CD, because all they really care about is the music.
Because it's fun, creative, connects with fans on a different level to just music.. not to mention some acts have built careers just on self-made youtube videos.
Thousand Foot Krutch made this project which was easily funded it seems. Although they are an established band already, and I'm not sure if 100k is "good" for them or not. But then again, that's only really pre-orders.
That might work for established artists like Pearl Jam, but consider Pearl Jam in the early 90s.
They made enough money to retire off their first album. Under the kickstarter model, they wouldn't have been able to earn anywhere near that much money as no one had heard of them outside of Seattle before their first album release.
Was making enough to retire their goal? Making enough to keep making music as much as they can seems like enough for a lot of musicians. If it could reach that level, I think it would be a "success".
The artist will only release if a certain threshold is reached.. Then the released music is completely "free" to share as people please. The artist is compensated as they see fit - they set the price in the first place, and also can use it to justify part of the price (to compensate for recording, hosting etc.).
"Piracy" then serves to generate rep to prove that they can deliver on future releases, there can still be people who make money in the middle - generating PR for the project etc.
The platform could take a small share of the cost, a slightly larger share for hosting, slightly more for promotion on the front page..