Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Samc]

Tom L wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 00:07

Samc wrote on Thu, 06 January 2011 09:21 Tom L wrote on Thu, 06 January 2011 16:02 Dominick wrote on Thu, 06 January 2011 06:26 Ah, the new paradigm yup. pretty sad What's sad? Bon Jovi topping the list isn't enough to make you weep?

No.  Apparently a lot of people (freely) paid money to see this band why should that make me weep pray tell?

[Bill Mueller]

Samc wrote on Thu, 06 January 2011 19:13

Tom L wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 00:07 Samc wrote on Thu, 06 January 2011 09:21 Tom L wrote on Thu, 06 January 2011 16:02 Dominick wrote on Thu, 06 January 2011 06:26 Ah, the new paradigm yup. pretty sad What's sad? Bon Jovi topping the list isn't enough to make you weep? No.  Apparently a lot of people (freely) paid money to see this band why should that make me weep pray tell?

Why Sam,

I didn't know you were such a Bon Jovi fan!

Bill

[PookyNMR]

Samc wrote on Thu, 06 January 2011 17:13

Tom L wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 00:07 Samc wrote on Thu, 06 January 2011 09:21 Tom L wrote on Thu, 06 January 2011 16:02 Dominick wrote on Thu, 06 January 2011 06:26 Ah, the new paradigm yup. pretty sad What's sad? Bon Jovi topping the list isn't enough to make you weep? No.  Apparently a lot of people (freely) paid money to see this band why should that make me weep pray tell?

Say what you will about the band or their music.  I saw the show.  It was solid and they worked hard at keeping the crowd entertained.  I can see why people continue to see them in big numbers.  They put on a good show and people enjoy it.

And they're not Nickelback.

[Samc]

Bill Mueller wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 00:20

Why Sam, I didn't know you were such a Bon Jovi fan!

I'm outed now...

[Tom L]

Not going down that path.  Just personal opinion which to each his/her own. I'll leave it at that.

[Bubba#$%Kron]

On the more recent live acts, does the record companies take a cut on these tours now??   If so, how much do you think they take?    They have to be getting a nice share of the GaGa/bieber shows, no?  anyone?

Thanks

[Samc]

Bubba Kron wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 03:57

On the more recent live acts, does the record companies take a cut on these tours now??   If so, how much do you think they take?    They have to be getting a nice share of the GaGa/bieber shows, no?  anyone?

Without knowing the specificities of their respective contracts it is not possible to provide a definitive answer to your questions, and without knowing exactly how these tours were setup we cannot know what the net earnings are of these bands and artists.

However, the number I mostly see being thrown around for all inclusive deals is a 50/50 split of the net between artist and label, but, do we know if any of these bands or artists have such a deal...

[MDM,]

people want their money's worth.  

Fan Bases are much larger for the 'vintage' artists.

this is no surprise to me at all.

I am always reminded of a woman who called-in at CHUM FM in toronto in the late 80's asking with a bewildered voice: "what is it that makes some music good and other music not good" or something to that effect... this coincided with oldies stations, classic rock etc. becoming a major radio format.. the seeds were sown.. The announcer replied: whatever music you like, but they were already admitting a change from CHR to Classic Rock was inevitable because their audience didn't want to hear the new music.

The idea is that listeners were becoming aware of bands that were super-hyped through MTV and promotion, but the music wasn't convincing enough..


but what really surprises me is this:

[cgc]

2009 had U2, Coldplay and AC/DC on tour which were all huge money makers.

[JimmyJ]

Bubba Kron wrote on Thu, 06 January 2011 19:57

On the more recent live acts, does the record companies take a cut on these tours now??   If so, how much do you think they take?    They have to be getting a nice share of the GaGa/bieber shows, no?  anyone? Thanks

I don't claim to understand the entire business model of major touring (from my low angle of observation) but in days-of-old Record Companies used to be involved in "tour support", essentially sponsoring the tour.  The original purpose of touring was seen as advertising to sell records.  It could be as sponsors they shared in a tour's profits back then, I don't know.  More likely any money invested was simply recouped from the Artist's record royalties.  (Another fine loan arrangement...)

The situation has flipped upside-down now with the record becoming an advertisement for the tour (which now usually has corporate sponsorship).  A prime example was Prince simply giving his album away.

I think the money is in touring now and I don't think the record companies have a hand in it.  Unless they are the entity that has completely created the Artist...  Then who knows?

Jimmy J

[RMoore]

Yes back in the old days labels used to, on occasion, cough up money in the form of 'tour support' which was seen as an investment well-spent to subsidize the tour and help promote the album. Standard operating procedure. This money would be mercilessly recouped from future sales.

I once went on the road with band in +- '89 for 2 weeks in the US where the label supposedly sunk 80 grand into it in order to cover wages ( I made about $400), motorhome hire, gas/food/lodging etc, a free bar at venues for media, label, distribution & retail people, and maybe even venue hire..  

Those were the days!

[ktownson]

CAA knows.

[Samc]

JimmyJ wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 16:50

The situation has flipped upside-down now with the record becoming an advertisement for the tour (which now usually has corporate sponsorship).  A prime example was Prince simply giving his album away.

Prince did not "give away" his album, fans paid for the CD when they bought a ticket to his show...

[Bill Mueller]

MDM, wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 10:12

people want their money's worth.   Fan Bases are much larger for the 'vintage' artists. this is no surprise to me at all. I am always reminded of a woman who called-in at CHUM FM in toronto in the late 80's asking with a bewildered voice: "what is it that makes some music good and other music not good" or something to that effect... this coincided with oldies stations, classic rock etc. becoming a major radio format.. the seeds were sown.. The announcer replied: whatever music you like, but they were already admitting a change from CHR to Classic Rock was inevitable because their audience didn't want to hear the new music. The idea is that listeners were becoming aware of bands that were super-hyped through MTV and promotion, but the music wasn't convincing enough.. but what really surprises me is this:

Max,

The best explanation I have ever heard was that because of the hormonal changes that occur during puberty, music from that time is imprinted on the brain with an intensity that is never duplicated again. That is why some of us can remember every nuance of a Beatles song from 1965, but can't remember where we left our keys last night.

Bill

[Samc]

RMoore wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 17:27

Those were the days!

It's even better these days in my opinion Ryan, no tour support has forced (some) bands and their management to be more innovative when planning and executing tours.  When done correctly everybody still gets paid but you don't have the label in your pocket...