Big time BANDS - $$$$ how?
 

Saw Van Halen 5 days ago.
Avg ticket price close to $100 ea. $12,000 people at Key Arena in Seattle. $1.2 million gross.

On average, what part of that amount do the 4 band members 'get'?

Knowing what I do about the music industry through people I've worked for, I'm going to say: Very little, actually.
After arena rental, truck rental, salaries, insurance, food, fuel, police/security, and all other expensese, they don't actually make that much.

The Rolling Stones had a concert around 1997/98 or so downtown Seattle. Do you remember that? Sold out show, as I recall.
At the end, I heard they walked away with about $1200 for each band member for the night after everyone else was paid.

Somehow I don't think that would pay for the fuel for Mick Jaggers jet.

They don't make much on the show. They do retain the bulk of money from the concession sales, t's, cd's etc. Can be substantial.

Most really big-time bands aren't in it for the money. Especially not the bands that get back together after a 20+ year hiatus. They do it for their fans.

"...we heard about the sellout
you've got to get an album out
you owe it to the people
we're so happy we can hardly count..."

I've always understood that the bulk of money bands make comes from touring - perhaps this only applies to the larger bands.

Have I been wrong all these years or did everyone above mean to post in green??? :D

Best,

Kurt

JULY 26, 2007, 3:21 PM
Mick Jagger, Profit Maximizer
By STEPHEN J. DUBNER
Today is the birth date of Michael Philip Jagger, known to the world as Mick. As true fans know, Jagger isn’t just the long-tenured front man of the Rolling Stones; he was also a student of finance and accounting at the London School of Economics.

He did not graduate from LSE, however; he attended for just a short time. I have read that he was asked to leave after riding a motorcycle through the library, but I doubt this is true — not just because it seems very unlikely, but because Jagger has never been as wild as his image. I mean this as a compliment.

Notwithstanding his short tenure at LSE, I do believe that Jagger is supremely smart when it comes to running a business. And that is what the Rolling Stones have primarily been for the past 20 or 30 years: a business, and a very well-run one. I have always thought that Jagger’s talents as CEO were overlooked — which probably suits him just fine, considering that when you are a rock singer, there’s some significant value in seeming more reckless and wild than a typical CEO.

The smartest thing about the Rolling Stones under Jagger’s leadership is the band’s workmanlike, corporate approach to touring. The economics of pop music include two main revenue streams: record sales and touring profits. Record sales are a) unpredictable; and b) divided up among many parties. If you learn how to tour efficiently, meanwhile, the profits — including not only ticket sales but also corporate sponsorship, t-shirt sales, etc., — can be staggering. You can essentially control how much you earn by adding more dates, whereas it’s hard to control how many records you sell.

The other thing about touring that’s nice for a band like the Rolling Stones is that it gives the non-songwriters a chance to make some real money. I’m sure that Charlie Watts, Bill Wyman, and Ronnie Wood made nice money from record sales over the years, but probably a lot less than you’d think. Jagger and Keith Richards, meanwhile, earn a lot more because they also earn a songwriting royalty. I have no idea whether Jagger pays Watts, e.g., as much as he pays himself for touring, but if one mark of a good CEO is providing an opportunity for everyone in the company to prosper, then Jagger is indeed a pretty good CEO.

From: http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/mick-jagger-profit-maximizer/

QUOTE: "Most really big-time bands aren't in it for the money."
_____________________

At first!
Music love originally, then ... fame, MONEY, GROUPIES, DRUGS, REHAB.

IIRC, VH was offered a flat fee for the whol tour. They get paid regardless of ticket sales and the promoters are the ones on the hook. VH is the perfect band for this kind of deal, since they haven't had an album to plug in many years, their DLR-era fanbase is much older now and can afford whatever the tix cost and there's always an element of drama and suspense with these guys. I wanted to see them very early in the tour because I had no idea if they'd make past the first week. You know they have an entourage of therapists and all that.

The Stones always have corporate sponsorships. On the Steel Wheels tour their big sponsor was Budwesier/Anheuser Busch. I worked a show on that tour and they all had carts of Beck's wheeled up onto the stage, but Bud ads everywhere. I still have some "limited edition" shirts and hats I got from my own band's Budweiser rep. from that tour. It was a cash cow.

I would think a band like Rush, which still puts out regular albums and tours a lot to promote them, but only with a very devoted cult following and no mass appeal, is the kind of band that gets paid an unpredictable amount based on tix and merchandising sales. There were some leaked court documents a while back showing what all they made from each show. It was very good, but not crazy money. They each walked away from the tour a few million richer. Sure would hate to pay taxes anywhere but in the US on that kind of money though.

This jibes with my knowledge of the concert biz; got family involved with it. Quite often the band gets very little (compared to what you might think), or the show is even in the red. Costs a staggering amount to put on a concert these days.

and 99% male fan base. :D

True, but look at the stuff the girls are into - boy bands, pop, other such stuff. If you're looking to bag chicks based on music taste, better learn how to spike your hair and look like a metrosexual - oh, and dance.

I had a friend of mine like this in high school. Everyone busted on him constantly for the practically-gay persona, but he did get the girls simply because he was fishing near "well-stocked ponds" all the time.

Tabs, you have to remember that Mick's jet is part of travel expenses.
One of the best job for tax purposes is a touring musician. Their entire lives while on tour are tax deductable. Everything, right down to the stop at McDonalds while on the road.
I work exclusively with musicians of all sorts, from bedroom players, studio musicians, to touring acts.

Even the hookers and blow?

So if they don´t make money on touring, and all their music is stolen (downloaded from peer-to-peer networks) how do bands make a living these days?

They have to make money on touring now. How can they not, unless they have a totally corrupt manager? $35 for a t-shirt and people line up to buy them. $20 for a tour book, which is basically a magazine with photos from the previous tour, and people line up for them. VH has special packages where you can pay $500 or so and get into the soundcheck, meet them all, get your photo with them.

Neil Peart talks a little about the costs in a few of his books. After his five year hiatus, he realized he didn't have enough money to retire on and so he got back into playing, did an album, tour, another tour leg, concert DVD and 30th anniv. tour and abother concert dvd from that .... all from that one album. I think that helped out their finances a bit. Last tour did pretty well too. He wrote that they have credit cards for the tour and pay for everything on them. His costs are a lot lower than the other guys, since he rides his motorcycle to every show and stays in cheap hotels to keep away from fans. Remember, those guys don't pay a dime for their instruments or supplies. All endorsements and the UPS guy regularly visits the places they play to drop off cases of stick, picks, cymbals, amps, strings, you name it.

So big bands don't make much money on tours?

These numbers are two years old, but a lot of money is going somewhere (hint: the bands!) :D

Top Tours of 2005
A rundown of the artists who've earned the most money so far this year:

1. U2
Gross: $236 million
Number of shows: 77

2. Elton John
Gross: $63 million
Number of shows: 58

3. Rod Stewart
Gross: $49 million
Number of shows: 58

4. Dave Matthews Band
Gross: $45 million
Number of shows: 51

5. Paul McCartney
Gross: $37 million
Number of shows: 17

6. Eagles
Gross: $36 million
Number of shows: 29

7. Jimmy Buffett
Gross: $35 million
Number of shows: 21

8. Motley Crue
Gross: $33 million
Number of shows: 81

9. Green Day
Gross: $32 million
Number of shows: 62

10. Bruce Springsteen
Gross: $25 million
Number of shows: 52

Source: http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/brucespringsteen/articles/story/8742275/stones_u2_boost_tour_biz

The Police tour has grossed more than $170 million so far. The grand-daddy of them all will be the upcoming Led Zeppelin tour.

Emphasis added in bold is mine:

The Richest Rock Stars of 2006
U2, Stones, Green Day make our annual list

BRIAN HIATT

Posted Mar 10, 2006 10:44 AM

The lesson of Rolling Stone's fifth-annual list of music's biggest moneymakers? Touring, more than ever, is where the money is: The vast majority of artists in our Top Thirty made the bulk of their cash on the road in 2005. Album royalties pale in comparison. "The music business has changed," says Paul McGuinness, longtime manager of U2, who came out on top last year, taking in an estimated $154.2 million after selling out more than 100 arena and stadium shows around the world. "Our recording income is not insignificant, but it's less than we make from touring. The figures used to be closer together." U2 make an estimated $15 million in advances for each album they release, plus additional royalties; they grossed $139 million on the road in North America in 2005 -- including as much as $150,000 per night in merchandise sales.

Rest of the article here:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/9447993/the_richest_rock_stars_of_2006

---------------

Best,

Kurt

Remember, the gross is before all the staff, rentals, food, etc is paid for. Just like any other boring business, you have to watch the costs.