Totally against it in most cases except for in the case of emergencies or big expenditures (like overseas tours or something). have donated to people that weren't bands.
I just think it will inevitably lead to scenarios that can stifle creativity, for example say a band puts out a solid, well received debut record and then decides to kickstart their next one. they raise enough money to do so but then the question arises "how exactly can we progress in our sound?" I think a lot of bands may be less likely to innovate/progress in their sound because they'll be worried that they'll piss off the people that gave them money to record it. The fact that their fans gave them money could heavily weigh on the conscience of a lot of musicians who may feel pressured to give their fans what they want rather than what the band wants.
I also think it's way too easy to abuse. Get a band together, raise a ton of money, and then break up. Kickstarter does nothing to insure that the recipient of the money will a) actually do the project or b) follow through with the rewards. It's based on the honor system (or at least it was last summer). There are a lot of people who are assholes in successful bands who could screw over their fanbase in this manner.
i think you raise a lot of valid points. And i think it depends...and i think its a lesson learned type thing. For instance i just donated to a band called TAT...and I'm not really all that pleased with the album so i probably wont donate to the next one....and that's the price they pay for having a kickstarter program....
but after listening to what i'm writing i see your point. bands will try to please the "all ready paid" fan-base, and will fear trying anything new. Hmm...its a good point, i'll have to think about it. I just think of it as a decent alternative to the system we have now.