Visual art vs. music:
...if the theory behind the processes are so similar (and maybe you can tell me that they aren't), why should we treat the end product so differently?
Because visual art, for the most part, exists outside of time, and music exists inside of time. An object only exists in time in as much as it will one day decay and not exist anymore; so it can be owned for the entire duration of its existence. A piece of music only exists while it's playing, and vanishes when it's finished playing; it can only be owned if the listener is wearing noise-cancelling headphones, and even then the "ownership" is over as soon as the song ends.
So instead of buying the new Velocity record for $15, it's $5, all of which is divided between the label and the record store.
Who are these bands making $10 on each record? Do they need a drummer?
I think you're talking something more along the lines of $13 price tag in a record store vs. $15, though I might be pushing it there. I think if a band were going the public-support-only route, they'd have to:
1. Have an existing, devoted, and massive audience
2. Not be associated with a record label
3. Distribute their stuff exclusively online and free, save for limited releases the band puts out on their own (which it can then sell for $5 or whatever it likes)
(I was also going to say "tour all the time," but you've got your "tip jar" crap in there, so never mind touring. Every venue is going to charge people, so folks will already be paying a cover - and what about when the venue has covered its expenses? Do the rest of the people get let in for free? Or does the excess go to the band, as is now the case? If this happens, do those who've donated get a refund? I don't think you should monkey with touring, but this is not my fantasy world.)
My guess, based on:
1. Listening to and volunterring for WBEZ, a highly successful NPR affiliate here in Chicago*
2. Thinking about people I know who are currently satisfied with MP3-only versions of songs or albums
3. Blind rage
...is that bands would make about $1 per "album released and sold." That is, if Tonko Boy currently sells 50,000 copies of everything they release, they're going to make $50,000 in donations relating to that release.
Nowadays, if a band can sell 50,000 copies of an album, they're probably doing pretty well for themselves. At that point a band can tour alot, sell alot of merchandise, and probably live OK just by being a rock band.
If this band's income is restricted such that they make no profits off of record sales or publishing, if their income from touring is diminished, if their merchandise is all non-profit... that $50,000 needs to last quite a while. If there are four people in the band, say four people and a tour manager/driver, and if the band is recording and mastering an album's worth of material every year, $50,000 is not going to go very far.
Also, it isn't like anyone is running away rich off your music, the label makes the same amount of money.
But the music is in the public domain, right? What if Limp Bizkit does a Tonko Boy cover? Do we solicit donations from Fred Durst?
I think this is a swell idea, but I don't think it's economically viable. I think the public domain business is a bad idea. I think paying a cover & then being asked to make a donation would be annoying. I also don't think all the other people and institutions (record labels, record stores, venues, opening bands, t-shirt manufacturers, etc.) that currently drain money from the income generated by a band will be willing to play along.
*NPR estimates that 1 listener in 10 donates to the station. The average contribution is around $100. Since there is one NPR station and there are many, many bands, and since (I think it's safe to assume) NPR listeners are in a somewhat higher earning bracket than most indie rock consumers, I'm figuring that the listener-to-contributor ratio is about the same, but that the donation-per-release averages $10.
Please make up some alternate math and update my cynical guess.