Fun Stuff > BAND
Do you buy music?
GenericName:
Statik, I've been linked to that article about 5 times and I always forget, every single time.
I've begun to regard it like a rickroll.
Jackie Blue:
--- Quote from: Statik on 31 Dec 2007, 14:09 ---I know, but you said that was over 2 years, and dont get me wrong, thats not pocket change, but its not a huge amount of money (4 member band = 1250each per year).
--- End quote ---
I think you're missing the point is that it was on an insanely tiny label, we didn't tour farther than 200 miles from our hometown, we had only been together a year, and we broke up right after the album came out so we didn't tour "in support" of it.
My point is that we made a decent chunk of change off something that was barely more than a glorified homemade local CD.
bobdaman27:
I'm new here, but i think this is a good topic to start on, i personally buy most of my music from underground/secondhand record stores.
but thats just me, im cool with whatever
Statik:
--- Quote from: zerodrone on 01 Jan 2008, 13:44 ---
--- Quote from: Statik on 31 Dec 2007, 14:09 ---I know, but you said that was over 2 years, and dont get me wrong, thats not pocket change, but its not a huge amount of money (4 member band = 1250each per year).
--- End quote ---
I think you're missing the point is that it was on an insanely tiny label, we didn't tour farther than 200 miles from our hometown, we had only been together a year, and we broke up right after the album came out so we didn't tour "in support" of it.
My point is that we made a decent chunk of change off something that was barely more than a glorified homemade local CD.
--- End quote ---
Which I never discredited in any way... If the larger point is that you wouldn't be able to do that today (ie: because of filesharing and such) then I would probably agree with you.
But I am rather confused, the major point of yours I was countering was the "99% of bands dont make much, if any, money from touring." If we are going to include every single local band ever, then I could see the number going that high, but if you consider say, only bands that have released nationally (in any way) I would say that most of them are making their living touring. And the younger the band is, the more work they do for less pay and the less time they get off. Which is why you have new bands that tour for 10-12 months out of the year, and then you can look at a band like "moe." (I'm using them as an example because of the night I was working their show, we were talking with the manager about something which led to) They tour for like 2 or 3 weeks straight, with like 1 day off. Then they take the rest of the year off. They have obviously made it to the point where they make enough from CD sales and limited touring where they are comfortable.
To kind of consolidate:
Younger bands don't sell as many CDs, so they go on tour with someone who has (sold a lot of CDs) to get their name out, and make some money (but not much). As they sell more CDs, they move from opener, to second opener, to headliner (all while making more money).
a pack of wolves:
No, most bands still don't make money touring. You're basically only describing the experiences of bands on large independent or major record labels who are gunning for the big time and have management, PR, label etc backing on this, but this is not the case for most bands. Also, the bands who are on that route frequently don't make money from gigs since pay to play has become more and more prevalent, so getting that 'second opener' slot often means the band shelled out a ton of cash rather than made any.
And what's a 'local band' anyway? How do you define such a thing, and why is it always used as a term for a band that is generally positioned as being of less worth than a 'national' band (another meaningless term)?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version