Fascinating article from Vanity Fair that looks at Santigold’s aborted North American dates and the current economics of touring Santigold Cancels North America Tour Due to 'Devastating' Costs - Variety
I suspect touring has always been iffy for a lot of artists. I remember I saw Michelle Malone like 15 years ago when she played a Mexican restaurant in Baltimore. Her partner did most - all? - of the talking during the show, and she encouraged us to buy merch so they'd have gas money. And she wasn't joking. Also recall Michelle's site would try to find homes of fans where they could crash. She's still out there, so she makes it work, but it must be a difficult shoestring life.
I saw the original thread making the rounds on Twitter. A bunch of artists agreed and said they could relate. It’s a shame. Makes me want to buy tickets for as many shows as I can get. And buy merch.
The music industry has always been tough. The top 1% of acts probably suck down 99% of the revenues. And lets face it you have to play live concerts to eat because Spotify et al don't pay very well. There's no easy formula but then again I don't think there ever was such a thing.
It's definitely scary because people aren't buying albums anymore. So if touring isn't profitable, how will bands continue to exist?
a lot of those same reasons Santigold has cancelled her performing...are the same reasons I've quit performing....performing ventures to shows. And really...those reasons are just supporting perifery reasons for me as the music is number 1....and that is absolutely what keeps me away. I've lost interest in the contemporary music scene. It's not my world anymore.
There have been so many concert tours this summer and fall, it's like a gold rush of artists who have been sidelined for a couple years. The late Alan Krueger, Princeton economist, wrote a book called Rockanomics. His book gets into explaining why the music industry has become a "superstar" system, where the top winners take all. The book has a lot of interesting information, like Krueger points out that the recorded music industry in the US nowadays has less revenue than the potato chip industry in the US. Some of his findings are summarized in this 2019 Wall Street Journal article. Music Superstars Are the New One Percenters Some highlights from his research mentioned in the article (and a historical chart from the article): As of 2017, the top 1% of artists took 60% of all live-music revenue. As of 2017, the top 5% of artists took 85% of all live-music revenue. (Kreuger looked at numbers for about 10,800 touring acts.) Performers today take about three-fourths of their income from concert tours. In the 1980s and 1990s, it was about 30%. (You don't even get health insurance, as you're basically self-employed.)
They won't. Not as they have been anyway. Not to worry though, the good folks who brought us the $2,OOO smartphone with a battery we can't replace are working on A.I. music. Humans may soon be irrelevant to that industry, except in their roles as paying listeners.
I've gone to too many shows this year because so many artists are touring after sitting for two years. I've had to hold back on buying so much merch lately. But I can't do this again next year.
Residencies might be a live music model that could be revisited? Artists could do a week or a month at a club or small theater. Just spit balling here.
The key part is the gluttony of artists touring this year. There are so many, and the costs are higher than normal, that it is impossible for fans to go to every concert they want, so a lot of artists are seeing fans not coming to their shows as a result. Not sure what the answer is, as even if things smooth out eventually, I don't see tickets costs ever going down again, and it is likely that some bands/artists will call it a day as working musicians as they look to make a living another way.
gas prices, inflation, rising costs on everything... Why would any artist really want to tour when they are going to be broke as a joke... Its not smart business right now.
Compounding things: young folks have less disposable income to spend on things like concerts: Not going out: how the cost of living crisis is destroying young people’s social lives
I've seen her play to 35 people in the best of times. And she's an artist who really deserved a whole lot more.
Bands IMO are fast becoming extinct. Seems like a lot of musicians not really collaborate with others. Instead they make music in their bedroom or office or whatever. And then maybe make videos. You see a lot of hotshot guitarists doing things like this; in the past folks like this would have been in garages trying to create new music with other wannabe musicians. I'm thinking of folks like this (just a random sampling of pages I've come across; don't know much about them) https://www.youtube.com/c/Gamazda https://www.youtube.com/c/AndreAntunesofficial https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCejGhzyJ_-l4j_3AZumgl-A https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZTnNKbAAoWx2eIQEfrvN1Q Honestly, I think odds are better of making a living by being a "YouTube musician" than by forming a band, slugging it out on the road and getting royally butt-screwed by Spotify and the streaming services.
The data shows it honestly hasn't changed that much. In 1985 the top 5% took 60% of all concert revenue...and now they take 83%. That's not a huge change. The 1% take growing from 25% to 60% is a major change; showing the 2-5%ers are now getting less.
Bands pretty much ceased to exist a decade or so ago. I would struggle to name more five 'new' bands from over the past decade, whereas in the 2000s I could easily name 10 new bands from any given year. Most of the bands today were big decades ago (Motley Crue, Def Leppard, Journey, Rolling Stones, etc.). The market just can't support a group or four (or more) dudes in a group. There just isn't that much money anymore like there was in decades past, and even then it was iffy in most cases. That's why we've been seeing more and more solo acts.
