Touring and money

For many years ago they said that to make gigs coasted much more money than the band ever could charge for the tickets. That only few big names made some money on that.

How is it nowadays? With sponsors and all that around they had to make a decent deal?

Anybody here who knows how things are?

/JJ

 

Many tours were cancelled.... for example Rush will not play in Germany... the taxes are too high!

Today... the management asks for a guarantee of $$$ and the risk has the organizer of the tour...

 

Rotten business

Hi Claus!

Thanks for your answer. It is a very rotten business *s* But the most bands have to tour to sell more records.

There are only few bands who could manage without touring that much.

Dunno how much Led Zeppelin toured, but they did exactly as they wanted in the most matters. No singles and no producer *s*
Way to go. The only band who were their own bosses *LOL* And had this guts to not go on without Bonzo!

 

A good example are the Rolling Stones, Bruce Springsteen or Robbie Williams concerts in Germany... good for the promoter/organizer all concerts they could sell all tickets... bad for the fans... the tickets are sooooo expensive!

 

€84 I paid for the Stones´Hamburg Concert. Expensive but I´ll never forget it.

 

Hmmmm.....

I have always heard that bands make MUCH more money from touring than they do from the sale of CD's. This is especially true since the late 70's - when bands decided to book their own tours and market their own merchandising without ANY "record company" involvement.

It is well known, even for popular acts, that the recording contracts contain clauses concerning marketing, recording, printing and distribution costs that often put all but the largest selling titles in the red. Many acts have to "pay back" these expenses from those well publicized "signing bonuses". However, they can book live shows independent of those agreements and take the profits for themselves. Especially if they have independent merchandising agreements (all that stuff they sell at the concessions during the concerts; tour programs, clothing, key chains, coffee mugs etc.) They can make good money - without selling 13 million copies of the CD.

Maybe local laws make these paydays impossible, but in general - I think touring is more lucrative than CD sales for most artists.

 

I recall reading a remark by David Lee Roth re: Van Halen not touring Japan. He wanted to, but the rest of the band (and management) wouldn't agree to it. It came down to the fact that while they WOULD make money on the tour, they wouldn't make enough money to make it worth their while.

 

My memory is the same as Uncle Al's -- touring is where the money was.

In his declining years, Elvis went on tour after tour because it was guaranteed money in the bank. With declining record sales -- and the sale of all the rights to the pre-1973 back catalog to RCA -- the only way Elvis could maintain his extravagant lifestyle was by constant touring. By that point, the people who shelled out their money to see him perform didn't care if he'd had a relevant hit single since "Burning Love," they were there to see ELVIS THE KING, and every tour was a guaranteed sellout.

The downside to constant touring is the toll it can take -- the "if it's Tuesday, it must be Cleveland" syndrome that people who grow to hate being on the road find themselves trapped in.

 

In some cases, doing shows is the only money bands make. Record company creative accounting leaves a whole lot of acts actually owing the labels money. Most new bands don't realize that all that advance money is actually a loan, and that all those limos, music videos, studio time, tour busses, company dinners, will be charged against that advance. Any record sales go straight into the label's coffers to pay off the band's "debt", and the only source of income left for the band is to play live.