5 ms·

It seems like music is the loss leader these days, I'm curious to know the pay day from touring.

• din-9 14y ago
  I believe touring and merchandising have always been where bands/artists can make the most money. If you have not read it, Courtney Love's essay from more than a decade ago that coevered how bands get paid for albums might be eye opening http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/ http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/
• alan_cx 14y ago
  From what I can tell, and the model I would advocate, is that recorded music is advertising for a live tour, which does make the money. And, IMHO, that is how it should be. A recording, to my mind, is faked music, produced to an inch of its like. Its like air brushing. A real artist, or musician, can perform live, and that is where they should make their money, performing their art. That is the artist. Buy a MP3 or CD and you are buying 5% artist, 95% corporate skimmed off "tax". Granted a lot of pop act's tours are fairly faked up, but at least you see the buggers put in the effort!!! IMHO, "piracy" keeps these artists honest.
  • simplexion 14y ago
    Hoodie Allen agrees with this.
  • twoodfin 14y ago
    Maybe you haven't watched the last few Superbowl halftime shows, but live performances can (and often are) produced to within an inch of their lives, too.
  • skrebbel 14y ago
    which is why all electronic music is fake and not real art!!
    • rjtavares 14y ago
      And Pixar movies are also not real art!! /dumbopinions
  • rjtavares 14y ago
    A recording is fake music as much as cinema is faked theatre. They're two different expressions, and both can be amazing. I don't understand why artists that adjust to one form deserve to be paid while the others don't... Also, producers, engineers, etc. that enable recorded music to be fine tuned to perfection deserved to be paid. They won't go on tours. The real question is: are labels/distributors paid too much? In this day and age, I think so, and that's why services like Bandcamp deserve to be supported.
  • msg 14y ago
    Have you ever heard Dark Side of the Moon live? Pink Floyd basically try to recreate the album note for note onstage, including playing tapes of the famous effects. The production was timeless, an integral part of the music. They have probably played it hundreds of times cover to cover over the years. Or you can take, in contrast, Like Spinning Plates by Radiohead. The music was recorded backwards, then run forwards. Thom Yorke learned the backwards melody, which gives the lyrics a clipped, alien quality. When they perform this song live, they use significantly different instrumentation. Is the album performance fake? No, it's impossible to do in any other way. There are many more examples I know, including bands that aren't worth a D live and bands that just record their live performances in the studio and call it a record. For me, hearing an album that is hard to perform live is a thrill, can't wait to hear what the band does with it.
  • anigbrowl 14y ago
    Wow, what gives you the right to define what sort of musical activities are valid? You come off as someone who resents artists and think they should only be allowed to make a living on your terms.
  • duaneb 14y ago
    Wait, so if I don't perform live I'm not a "real artist"? Thank god I can throw out all my music, thank you for enlightening me!
  • tunesmith 14y ago
    That's ridiculous - a musician that writes/records and doesn't perform is just as valid as a musician that performs and doesn't write/record. People that say otherwise are usually the same people that feel entitled in not paying for recorded music.
  • coldtea 14y ago
    >From what I can tell, and the model I would advocate, is that recorded music is advertising for a live tour, which does make the money. Actually, from thousands of interviews I've read from artists, live tours are always a losing proposition money-wise. Except for big bands (from Rolling Stones down to Kings of Leon or White Stripes levels of big) for any alternative artist, much less a group, it's bleeding money. And, no, merchandise doesn't do it, either. >A real artist, or musician, can perform live, and that is where they should make their money, performing their art. That is the artist. So those post 1965 Beatles albums, when they stopped performing live, are not real art. You know, like Abbey Road, Sgt Pepper, Revolver et al.
• adventured 14y ago
  The top artists are making huge amounts of money from touring. http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/1481408/top-25-tours-of-2012 http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/1481408/top-25-tours-... eg Roger Waters' tour grossed $186 million on 72 shows. Madonna did $228 million. They obviously don't get to keep that, but they get a very healthy cut.
  • coldtea 14y ago
    Only those (the top ones) though. For small alternative artists (less 1 million album sales, which is the vast majority) it's almost always a losing proposition.
    • dobbsbob 14y ago
      I toured with noname punk and electro bands all over europe. They def make more money on tour than anything else and all of them have a network of free places to crash run by local artists, they borrow local gear so you dont have to pay for logistics, and the venues feed you on top of payout end of the night. Never did any come back broke a typical tour youd make $1-6k per show, plus around $1200 in merch, then do 20 shows while partying for free everyday at crash pads. Split that 4 ppl you go on a 3mos vacation to europe and return with $9-15k each which is pretty good income for a college band thats going back to school in sept. If you lose money touring youre doing it wrong