Everyone officially in the band at the time gets a cut, right? Do touring members get a much smaller slice? Is that all determined before the performance? Let's leave special events like awards shows out of the discussion.
I'm gonna guess long-time members are like ensemble casts where the leads get more of a percentage. A band with a missing member whose parts are covered by a new member must be still willing to pay his way for equity. I wonder how Michael McDonald got paid when he first went out on the road with The Doobie Brothers: he was valuable to Warners in the day, and was known for his backup with with Steely Dan, but he wasn't "*Michael McDonald*" yet. I wonder how Stevie Vai got the same money as the rest of the Zappa band, or more. Stunt guitar cred? How does that go over with the rest of the crew? The Guess Who's last tour was the lead, the original drummer, the guy from The James Gang/Bush, and...some guy named Bill. Who gets better money, the elder statesmen drummer, or Dom Troiano? It's Burton's band, he gets the most. Gotta be case-by-case.
Totally depends on what contract they signed. Any decent management would have it be all inclusive, everything they do while on salary can be recorded and released as they see fit.
Well, sure, but they must get something extra from the sale of live recordings. I'm more interested in the money to touring members, because obviously official members are paid like they are for studio albums. I see a likely tie to why solo artist seem to release fewer live albums than bands.
Touring players, official members..it is all in the contracts and whatever band corporation agreements. Some bands go for even splits; others payout based on whatever pecking order there is amongst the members. Some are more equal the others. A solo artist would most likely make more on a live album as he can pay his touring band less than if they were full member/owners.
It's probably required by a musicians' rights organization. It's not like they can be paid in advance for that, since I don't think that live albums are ever a sure thing until during or after the tour, and sales aren't easy to predict. I could see an exception if units manufactured or sold are very few.
Yes, I can agree with all that. There might be complexity for a solo artist paying a full backing band, however, especially if it's mercenaries with varying levels of drawing power who probably aren't committed to anything more. Imagine having to keep tabs on those payments years later if the live album is popular.
That's why you hire accountants and managers, you just have to make sure they don't make you look like a money grubbing dyck; unless that is what you desire.
Yes. I'm just saying the logistics might be a problem, if there's no industry body that handles some of that for artists. People move around, accountants come and go and might not be thorough, and the artist gets a bad reputation if payments aren't made correctly - just another reason to think, Why bother releasing a live album?
