Stuart Hamm 'Hold Fast' album and backing campaign

[Chris2112]

I was quite excited to see the other day that Stuart Hamm has announced he's working on a new album, or rather, it is very nearly done. As you might expect in this day and age, he has launched a backing campaign to get it finished. Being a big fan of Stu's work from over the years, I was quite happy to throw some dough his way to get the record finished. When I signed up the other day the campaign had about £80 in funds but it's now doing very well with over £10,000. I've only backed one of these campaigns in the past, for Jeff Berlin's 'Jack Songs' record. Contrary to that protracted and somewhat opaque process, Stu has a given a clear indication of his goals and what he intends to do with the funds, so I do have confidence that the work is nearing completion. Plus, the sound of a prog rock album with guitar work from Alex Skolnick sounds very intriguing. 

 

 

https://igg.me/at/StuHammHoldFast/x#/

 

 

 

[Rayman]

The way recorded music is produced is changing so much. I think it’s great, that fans, if they’re able to, can get involved in the production of their favourite artists next record. I’ve pre-ordered Janek Gwizdalas next record for example.
 

I also think it’s good, that the large corporations, that used to hold the future artists in the palms of their hands, are becoming less and less relevant. 

 

We, back in the day, we were obsessed with “getting a deal”. It was the only thing on our minds. It’s no wonder so many young bands were getting ripped off left right and centre by business people who couldn’t care less about the wellbeing or future of their signed artists.

 

Pre sales, and crowdfunding, is the healthy way forward. In my opinion.

[Hellzero]

Start of the rant.

 

There's something strange in that crowdfunding system especially coming from well established people like Stu Hamm and many others.

 

My main question is: What the heck did he do with all the big money he earned if he can't afford to record a new album?

 

For a start-up, that's ok, for established people, there's a big problem.

 

If I can afford to record a new album, why couldn't he?

 

End of the rant.

[Rayman]

I doubt he earned any big money.

 

Famously Kings X bass legend Doug Pinnick has struggled for money all his life….

 

Being in the public eye doesn’t equal a big bank balance.

[Hellzero]

So, say him to get a regular job and do like the most of us, earn his living, raise some money for some projects and live normally.

 

The problem with the music business us that most of the musicians don't think ahead at all and spend more than they earn.

 

I've never heard of a jazzman complaining about working a lot to earn money.

[Rayman]

54 minutes ago, Hellzero said:

So, say him to get a regular job and do like the most of us, earn his living, raise some money for some projects and live normally.

 

The problem with the music business us that most of the musicians don't think ahead at all and spend more than they earn.

 

I've never heard of a jazzman complaining about working a lot to earn money.

 What??

 

 

[WinterMute]

1 hour ago, Hellzero said:

Start of the rant.

 

There's something strange in that crowdfunding system especially coming from well established people like Stu Hamm and many others.

 

My main question is: What the heck did he do with all the big money he earned if he can't afford to record a new album?

 

For a start-up, that's ok, for established people, there's a big problem.

 

If I can afford to record a new album, why couldn't he?

 

End of the rant.

Marillion have crowd funded albums for years after they were dropped by their label.

 

You might want to look at Steve Albini's essay on the record industry and how the money goes almost anywhere but to the band/artist, and his later, more optimistic, comments about the internet.

 

https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-problem-with-music

 

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/nov/17/steve-albini-at-face-the-music-how-the-internet-solved-problem-with-music

[Hellzero]

Looks like "I want it all and I want it now" is more than an anthem nowadays.

 

It's a very good thing that labels are not what they used to be as things have to evolve.

 

We had way too much shītty music thanks to these labels.

 

Those artists willing to show their art can still go through, for example, Bandcamp and make everything by themselves instead of waiting for a company to pay for everything.

 

And it's rather strange from a guy that must know the saying "No pain no gain"...

[Rayman]

Are you his dad by any chance?

[BigRedX]

33 minutes ago, WinterMute said:

Marillion have crowd funded albums for years after they were dropped by their label.

 

You might want to look at Steve Albini's essay on the record industry and how the money goes almost anywhere but to the band/artist, and his later, more optimistic, comments about the internet.

 

https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-problem-with-music

 

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/nov/17/steve-albini-at-face-the-music-how-the-internet-solved-problem-with-music

 

Ignoring the fact that both Steve Albini articles are so old as to be totally out of date (and first now totally irrelevant in todays musical environment), they also conveniently avoid pointing out that people like Steve Albini and Marillion are still able to exist as musicians today because they have built up suitably sized fan base under the old (bad) system. They may not have made a lot of money under this (or so they claim), but at the time they were relatively big fish (pun not intended) in a relatively small pond, they should have had the whole and very extensive weight of their record company publicity machines behind them; and that is what is now allowing them luxury of continuing the exist musically.

 

Similarly for the album in the OP. The crowd-funding model only works because Stuart Hamm has already built up a reputation in the 80s and 90s. I do notice that his costs are relatively modest, although I wonder if he did look at getting any of the work done up front for free in exchange for a share of the profits? Especially that given his reputation he should be have no problem generating sufficient money from this venture.

 

Nowadays when there are somewhere between 40k and 100k new tracks being uploaded to Spotify EVERY SINGLE DAY. How can a new artist ever hope to be noticed in order to be able to build up a large enough fan base to be able to make crowd-funding work for even the most modest of projects? I wonder how many of upon here playing music we have written ourselves would be able to raise the kind of money that Stuart Hamm is looking for through a similar system?

Edited May 11, 2023 by BigRedX

[WinterMute]

2 hours ago, BigRedX said:

 

Ignoring the fact that both Steve Albini articles are so old as to be totally out of date (and first now totally irrelevant in todays musical environment), they also conveniently avoid pointing out that people like Steve Albini and Marillion are still able to exist as musicians today because they have built up suitably sized fan base under the old (bad) system. They may not have made a lot of money under this (or so they claim), but at the time they were relatively big fish (pun not intended) in a relatively small pond, they should have had the whole and very extensive weight of their record company publicity machines behind them; and that is what is now allowing them luxury of continuing the exist musically.

 

Similarly for the album in the OP. The crowd-funding model only works because Stuart Hamm has already built up a reputation in the 80s and 90s. I do notice that his costs are relatively modest, although I wonder if he did look at getting any of the work done up front for free in exchange for a share of the profits? Especially that given his reputation he should be have no problem generating sufficient money from this venture.

 

Nowadays when there are somewhere between 40k and 100k new tracks being uploaded to Spotify EVERY SINGLE DAY. How can a new artist ever hope to be noticed in order to be able to build up a large enough fan base to be able to make crowd-funding work for even the most modest of projects? I wonder how many of upon here playing music we have written ourselves would be able to raise the kind of money that Stuart Hamm is looking for through a similar system?

 

Marillion haven't had a record label for 25 years, a band like them needed funding to record back then, and yes, it's very different today and I'm sure they take advantage of the available technology. Steve is still very much of the same opinions, and views the internet as a way to get away from the clutches of the labels, sadly the streaming scams have simply put the money back in the hands of the middlemen. 

 

Stu Hamm has a following, and he's leveraging it, more power to him, I don't think the situation for a new artist recently signed is much different in terms of label support and where the money goes, many of my producer friends have resorted to the so called 360 deal with artists, taking points from ticket and merchandise sales as well as releases, there are clauses for ads, films, TV. The reality is that everyone still wants a bite.

 

I make my own music, I do it for pleasure these days and I release it privately, the tech means it sounds as good as anything I did in a studio in the 80s and 90s. I think this is a good thing for everyone, except for your last point about releases, the signal to noise ratio has worsened exponentially in the last 10 years, who can hear the music over the noise now?

[Chris2112]

4 hours ago, Hellzero said:

Start of the rant.

 

There's something strange in that crowdfunding system especially coming from well established people like Stu Hamm and many others.

 

My main question is: What the heck did he do with all the big money he earned if he can't afford to record a new album?

 

For a start-up, that's ok, for established people, there's a big problem.

 

If I can afford to record a new album, why couldn't he?

 

End of the rant.

 

 

I don't think Stu has ever had 'big money'. I recall that in the early 90's when he was still signed with Relativity Records and touring with Joe Satriani he was working a regular job on days off (working at a gas station, if memory serves). I'm guessing that the general cost of living in California and relatively low incoming from royalties has been enough to ensure that he'll never be a millionaire. He's also had some health problems, quite serious problems at that and as we know, getting ill in America can cost big money. 

 

None of these guys would be in that position if the record labels still existed or still backed projects like this. Jeff Berlin's 'Jack Songs' had about zero commercial appeal and so that had to be crowdfunded or it never would have been made. I don't decry these guys for making a living, if the money doesn't come from crowdfunding it won't come from anywhere now. 

[Hellzero]

The American Dream is a nightmare for sure, especially if you get sick, BUT you know it from the start, so just save some money...

 

That said a solid bunch of musicians, him included, have a lot of incomes through diverse positions in multiple schools, endorsements or simply as touring and/or recording musicians.

 

You work to earn money, why wouldn't they do the same.

 

This is where lies the problem (and the rock star excess living isn't a myth at all).

 

Don't get me wrong, I have been a huge fan of Stuart Hamm, saw him live several times (he wasn't always to the top, but it's nothing new) and still like listening to some of his music (I think I heard Black Ice something like a 1000 times), but a crowdfunding for such a ridiculous amount, come on!

 

PS: I buy everything I listen to so the artists get paid...

[Cato]

Like many things the market will decide if crowdfunding the album is a viable proposition, nobody is getting their arm twisted. Either a person wants to donate money or they don't.

 

 Personally I don't think £10,000 is overly ambitious for this kind of fundraiser.

 

I hope he gets there.

[binky_bass]

I've got a lot of time for Stu Hamm, and I have absolutely zero issue with him crowd funding as most of the funding is in exchange for various levels of 'perks' - he's not gone out with a begging bowl. So you pay your money and either get an album when it's done or pay more and get other 'extras'. If people want to fund it and get something back for it, then why not do it? I suppose it also mean Stu isn't bound to a label that'll rake 95% of the profits. 

 

And finally, Stu Hamm always has and always will instantly remind me of a more trim, rock version of John Goodman! 

[BigRedX]

17 hours ago, WinterMute said:

Marillion haven't had a record label for 25 years, a band like them needed funding to record back then, and yes, it's very different today and I'm sure they take advantage of the available technology. Steve is still very much of the same opinions, and views the internet as a way to get away from the clutches of the labels, sadly the streaming scams have simply put the money back in the hands of the middlemen. 

 

But as the OP points out you need to get the original money for a musical project from somewhere, and since very little is forthcoming from record labels these days where can it come from? Venture Capitalists? A Bank Loan?

 

Crowd funding is all very well but you need a crowd in the first place to fund from, and unsurprisingly the majority of artists making crowd funding work for them got their crowd as a result of being signed to a "big bad" record label.

 

For all their faults I can't see any other institutions taking over from record labels and taking the same financial risks that they used to. Can you imagine how you would word a business proposal to raise sufficient money to allow you and the rest of your band to take a year or two off work so that you could concentrate full-time on the music, at the same time providing the funding to make an album, a couple single and video to go with them, buying the band onto a couple of big-name tours in a support sort, plus all the other promotional activities needed to generate an audience big enough to make the venture self-funding by the time the original investment ran out?

 

OoI has anyone on here successfully crowd funded an album release? I've been in bands that discussed it but my stance was - what if it failed - there's nothing sadder than a band who can't even raise the cash required to put out a album, and whose failure is there for everyone to see. The Billy No-Mates of the musical world.

[lidl e]

I have a funny story very related to this.

 

In the 90s i was living in SF. One night i was waiting at a muni stop and i look to my left and there is Stu Hamm with a gigbag over his shoulder (it was an urge bass!) 

 

He had just played a gig and was heading home, on the bus, to his rented apartment (we got to chatting and i asked where he was going). He alluded to the fact that he made very little money doing what he was doing. I know it is odd that we had a conversation like that in the middle of the night out of nowhere, but it was like he was telling me it's not all it's cracked up to be. 

 

I swear he even hinted it wasnt worth it and was thinking of getting out of it. He just seemed tired and fed up.

 

Now this was before the internet, so I'd assume there are many more options to make money nowadays, but i came away with the feeling he was making like 70K a year bejng one of the world's greatest bassists

 

Absolutely 100% true story. 

 

Anyway, takeaway is i dont think he ever made much money. Certainly not millions.

[BigRedX]

If I was making 70k a year out of music, I certainly wouldn't need to be crowd-funding my next album.

[lidl e]

4 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

If I was making 70k a year out of music, I certainly wouldn't need to be crowd-funding my next album.

70k would barely pay for promotion for a major release I'd guess.

 

I never noticed your avatar moves!

 

[BigRedX]

1 hour ago, lidl e said:

70k would barely pay for promotion for a major release I'd guess.

 

Certainly not in the past with record label funding.

 

However if you look at the crowd funding proposal link in the OP you'll see that Stuart Hamm is only asking for $1,500 for a publicist for this project.

 

Also these days the money's not in recording and releasing albums, but in tour and merchandise sales. The album is generally a promotional tool for the things that can generate an income. When the Terrortones released our first single we put up £2k (£500 each) plus 150 copies of the single for promotion. Some of it was money well spent and some pretty much useless, but what it did do was to get us was a foot in the door of the publicity machine, so that when we released our second single our promotion which much cheaper because we were able to target it so much more effectively. Also we made back our "investment" by playing gigs and selling T-shirts and CDs, so from that point onwards the band was pretty much self-funding.

 

This is why I'm always so sceptical of crowd funding. The artists who need it most are those who are working on their first musical project and who are unlikely to have built up a sufficiently large enough audience to make it viable. Once you've made you first release the sales and other musical income of the back of that should fund the next, and so-on. If they don't then maybe you should be doing something different, or put up your own money and accept that it is simply a vanity project.

Edited May 12, 2023 by BigRedX

[WinterMute]

45 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

 

But as the OP points out you need to get the original money for a musical project from somewhere, and since very little is forthcoming from record labels these days where can it come from? Venture Capitalists? A Bank Loan?

 

Crowd funding is all very well but you need a crowd in the first place to fund from, and unsurprisingly the majority of artists making crowd funding work for them got their crowd as a result of being signed to a "big bad" record label.

 

For all their faults I can't see any other institutions taking over from record labels and taking the same financial risks that they used to. Can you imagine how you would word a business proposal to raise sufficient money to allow you and the rest of your band to take a year or two off work so that you could concentrate full-time on the music, at the same time providing the funding to make an album, a couple single and video to go with them, buying the band onto a couple of big-name tours in a support sort, plus all the other promotional activities needed to generate an audience big enough to make the venture self-funding by the time the original investment ran out?

 

OoI has anyone on here successfully crowd funded an album release? I've been in bands that discussed it but my stance was - what if it failed - there's nothing sadder than a band who can't even raise the cash required to put out a album, and whose failure is there for everyone to see. The Billy No-Mates of the musical world.

It was ever thus before the age of affordable audio tech, the process of just making an album was prohibitively expensive, which was where the labels came in, and still do occasionally these days.

 

It's a perfectly reasonable prospect to put some time into learning how to record and mix properly and putting together a system capable of returning good product, and it's usually cheaper than paying for an established studio. I think there's still an expectation that the "big studio" experience is the only way to achieve pro results, and that's simply not true now.

 

If Stu Hamm wants to leverage his fan-base to pay for better facilities, he absolutely should, if I tried it I reckon I could get £37.50...

 

I'm lucky enough to be able to record and mix, but I'm aware thats not the case for everyone, so the limited help that a label can bring is often the only route available. Labels have always been necessary evil, but some of the practices in the industry are pernicious and that drives artists to try different things.

[lidl e]

17 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

 

Certainly not in the past with record label funding.

 

However if you look at the crowd funding proposal link in the OP you'll see that Stuart Hamm is only asking for $1,500 for a publicist for this project.

 

Also these days the money's not in recording and releasing albums, but in tour and merchandise sales. The album is generally a promotional tool for the things that can generate an income. When the Terrortones released our first single we put up £2k (£5050 each) plus 150 copies of the single for promotion. Some of it was money well spent and some pretty much useless, but what it did do was to get us was a foot in the door of the publicity machine, so that when we released our second single our promotion which much cheaper because we were able to target it so much more effectively. Also we made back our "investment" by playing gigs and selling T-shirts and CDs, so from that point onwards the band was pretty much self-funding.

 

This is why I'm always so sceptical of crowd funding. The artists who need it most are those who are working on their first musical project and who are unlikely to have built up a sufficiently large enough audience to make it viable. Once you've made you first release the sales and other musical income of the back of that should fund the next, and so-on. If they don't then maybe you should be doing something different, or put up your own money and accept that it is simply a vanity project.

TBH, i didnt look at the link! 

 

You make very valid and interesting points though!

[Hellzero]

What annoys me is the overall tarif.

 

Would you pay $50 USD for a CD (certainly without shipping) when it will end up at 1 quid in the local cash converter?!?

 

It's not crowdfunding, it's crowdstealing.

 

Anyone else doing the same would offer you a lot more than just what he's offering...

 

Support Loris Tils instead: https://fr.ulule.com/nouvel-ep-book-loris-tils/?utm_campaign=presale_164694&utm_source=shared-from-Ulule-project-page-on---http.referer--&utm_medium=uluid_5073134-post-202305120112