2 ms·

It doesn't appear to be competition. David is basically saying there are two tiers: the big stars and everyone else. Everyone else is making their money from se

It doesn't appear to be competition. David is basically saying there are two tiers: the big stars and everyone else. Everyone else is making their money from selling their music, not from touring.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
Isn't "everyone else" just not making money at all?
- JKCalhoun 2y ago
  Yeah, probably not. But David was dispelling the myth that touring is where the money, if any, comes from. Apparently as a mid-tier musician the crumbs are record-sales crumbs, not touring crumbs. He definitely brought up some interesting points I had not considered about how only weekends will give a band a large draw, about over saturation of venues in the U.S., etc.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    I'm not sure that's making a strong case though. The fans go to the concert and buy what they're selling. That's albums and posters and shirts etc. But the fans have a given amount of disposable income and are inclined to support the band (if they wanted the music without paying they could just pirate it already), so what do you lose if you instead sold more posters and fewer albums? If anything you end up with more exposure on both fronts. If the fan who wants to support you buys a shirt instead of an album then people see them wearing the shirt and discover the band, meanwhile if recordings were free then people who wouldn't have paid might listen and once again discover the band. More fans mean more attendance on tours, so we're back to that, but also more fans buying merchandise, whether that's albums or something else. So there's no disproof of the argument that the band's worst enemy is obscurity, and then limiting the distribution of their music is still the threat rather than the solution.
WalterBright 2y ago
The streaming and CDs are for advertising the band. Then you can make a success out of touring. Touring first doesn't work. And if you're not good, touring won't fix it.

It doesn't appear to be competition. David is basically saying there are two tiers: the big stars and everyone else. Everyone else is making their money from selling their music, not from touring.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

Isn't "everyone else" just not making money at all?

JKCalhoun 2y ago
Yeah, probably not. But David was dispelling the myth that touring is where the money, if any, comes from. Apparently as a mid-tier musician the crumbs are record-sales crumbs, not touring crumbs. He definitely brought up some interesting points I had not considered about how only weekends will give a band a large draw, about over saturation of venues in the U.S., etc.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  I'm not sure that's making a strong case though. The fans go to the concert and buy what they're selling. That's albums and posters and shirts etc. But the fans have a given amount of disposable income and are inclined to support the band (if they wanted the music without paying they could just pirate it already), so what do you lose if you instead sold more posters and fewer albums? If anything you end up with more exposure on both fronts. If the fan who wants to support you buys a shirt instead of an album then people see them wearing the shirt and discover the band, meanwhile if recordings were free then people who wouldn't have paid might listen and once again discover the band. More fans mean more attendance on tours, so we're back to that, but also more fans buying merchandise, whether that's albums or something else. So there's no disproof of the argument that the band's worst enemy is obscurity, and then limiting the distribution of their music is still the threat rather than the solution.

WalterBright 2y ago

The streaming and CDs are for advertising the band. Then you can make a success out of touring. Touring first doesn't work. And if you're not good, touring won't fix it.