Question to all you touring guys.

[smy1]

tarnationsauce: it depends on the relationship you have with the label. It always helps to have it written in the contract though ...

Subconscious: It is not. If my band draws 1000 people every night, while your band draws 3, it's just regular business that you pay for the exposure. That way you get to present your material in front of new people and have a chance to sell merch. It's like buying ad-space ... with the difference that you can really make an impression if you are good.

Doesn't mean touring with a buy-in is always the best option. I personally believe playing festivals and big party shows is a much better plan to reach a bigger audience.

 

[xconnyx]

im not in a band or have ever been on a tour, but you have to pay to open for somebody? that seems retarded...

depends...

it is not unusual for bigger clubs (around 500-700ppl) to ask for local support and to sell them 20-50 tickets which they have to sell. if you cant sell them you have paid to play the show. even the metal camp guys are doing that.

it is not unusual as well for promoters to sell 50 or more tickets as a door deal. you do make money (or can start covering your costs for hotel/gas/car/crew) after the 50th person paying to get in.

another thing is for bigger tours (with a nightliner etc) to cover the costs for the label to ask other labels (or bands) to be on the package for a certain amount of money. mostly a fair deal if you ask me. if you pay 4000euro for 3 weeks touring in a nightliner and you dont have to worry about the financial thing and the booking i think it is ok to pay 4000euro. just think about the fact that you'll spend hours of booking for 3 weeks touring, nightliner starts at 800euro per day, designing tour posters, get the promo rolling etc... and all in all if you have a lable or management they are suppose to carry this buy in...

if you're getting paid for a support show you have landet a good deal, even if its gas money only.

 

[xconnyx]

I personally believe playing festivals and big party shows is a much better plan to reach a bigger audience.

i think so too. playing weekend shows and get the thing rolling is more efficient then trying get a tour rolling. since you build it up slowly. if you play in front of 150ppl on a friday or a saturday night, even on a regular basis (regular means not in you local club, means no matter where you are 150 ppl show up) you will find yourself in front of 20 or less ppl on a monday or thursday night on tour. this is not worth the effort if you ask me.

try to get the weekend shows full of ppl and try to get good spots here and there, then think about touring.

i know touring can be lots of fun and everybody in music wants to do this, but it is no fun at all if nobody is there to see the show.

 

[drew_drummer]

I wouldn't pay to tour with a big band; I think the key is to make friends with other bands, and create a community... not just look at other bands as your way into the music biz.

 

[Subconscious]

well i guess that makes sense, but its still sad that your paying to play music

 

[Force666]

well i guess that makes sense, but its still sad that your paying to play music

You're not. Your paying money as an investment into your "business". Just like whoever said, it's like buying ad-space on a billboard or an ad in a magazine. The point is that the money you spend is supposed to in-turn make you more money than would if you hadn't done it.

If it was free and easy then everyone would do it.

 

[egan.]

But with that said, even though we had contracts signed with Stratovarius' management and the tour promotion company, and had our work visa, we got screwed out of the tour by a fucken piece of shit, selfish, waste of skin asshole promoter from the States.

This fucker ended up booking TONS of local support bands for the US shows and pretty much refused to take any of them off.

Were his initials JF?

 

[jrt12]

You're not. Your paying money as an investment into your "business". Just like whoever said, it's like buying ad-space on a billboard or an ad in a magazine. The point is that the money you spend is supposed to in-turn make you more money than would if you hadn't done it.

If it was free and easy then everyone would do it.

this is the mindset that allows this "business" to continue to rob bands. pay to play, in any form, is an insult to musicians. why would a venue pay a DJ to come in perform at their venue, then turn around and make a band pay to perform at their venue? its ridiculous... i know "thats just the way the business is", but just accepting that fact means that it will never change. it really saddens me to hear that this same fucked up system is the same, from the LA dive bars all the way up to cross country European tours with major labels.

 

[John_C]

Pay to play is a very unfortunate result of how the industry works. What's next? Pay to mix?

 

[HatchetDrummer]

Paying money to play shows and go on tour is shooting yourself in the foot.

My last tour in the us was a 3 week long east coast tour that put $400 cash in my pocket at the end, and the only money that was spent out of pocket was buying week, very shitty weed, compared to northern california weed.

Try other booking agents. My record label didnt do shit for my band on the tour, its was booked DIY.

DIY or die.

ha ha. Good Luck.

 

[kenfobert]

Were his initials JF?

shhhhh....lol

 

[kenfobert]

Don't have much to add to the thread, but wanted to say I really dig your band. I started listening and thought some awful screaming vocals were going to come in and ruin it. But then you have an awesome singer. And the synth solo topped it off. Really nice work, keep it up.

Thanks a lot man, that means a lot....and ya if we had screaming vocals I don't think our sound would work.

 

[Force666]

this is the mindset that allows this "business" to continue to rob bands. pay to play, in any form, is an insult to musicians. why would a venue pay a DJ to come in perform at their venue, then turn around and make a band pay to perform at their venue? its ridiculous... i know "thats just the way the business is", but just accepting that fact means that it will never change. it really saddens me to hear that this same fucked up system is the same, from the LA dive bars all the way up to cross country European tours with major labels.

I hear you dude. But, i'm not seeing where you're coming from with the "paying to perform at their venue". That's not what we're talking about here. You're paying to get on a tour with a well known band that draws so that you have a chance to expose your music to a wide audience that otherwise wouldn't hear you. You know, just like on tv they don't give away the commercial airtime for free. I mean business is business, it doesn't have to do with the "music business" it's all business. You need to invest money into any business.

Even places that are "pay to play" as you're stating, aren't even "pay to play". They're if you can't draw 30 - 50 people here to see your band then you have to pay. It's not like you're forced to do it at gun-point. If you can't draw a crowd then you have no business being there to begin with. Not trying to be a dick, but it's just reality.

Music is art, and art is free. But trying to play shows and make money is BUSINESS, and if you want to make your band a business you have to invest in the proper "promotion" for your band. I mean really, this is the only reason labels exist. Otherwise what would they have to offer?

Just because it's fucked, doesn't mean it's not a reality.

"this is the mindset that allows this "business" to continue to rob bands" could easily be changed to "this is the mindset that allows this "business" to continue to pay bands that have earned their worth"

 

[jrt12]

yea, the pay to play vs the tour example isnt apples to apples. for me, paying to play at a venue is completely against all principles (as an artist and as a businessman). however, the tour has diff variables... buses, hotels, staff lodging and per diems, etc. it does get more complicated.

however, i disagree with your notion that its entirely up to the system to determine your band's "worth". we've all seen 9 stories out of every 10 where a band goes on tour and works their butts off and makes no money or ends up in debt. seems like everyone makes their money first, then IF there's any left, the bands gets some. when, in fact, no one would be making as much money if the bands weren't performing.

i know its a reality that the artist always gets the short end, but it doesnt make me like it any more. guess i'm just fucken bummed that the music scene is the same across the world. was hoping it was just the LA scene that sucked. damn..

 

[-Gavin-]

It costs money to tour... If you were a headlining band, would you want to invest 30-40k in a tour and just invite (even some "friends") to get the same benifits for free?

Tour managers cost money
Busses cost money
Food/Drinks (Essentials, not booze) cost money
Fuel costs money
Venues cost money (Be it in ticket sales or whatever)
Roadies/Stage hands cost money
Promotion costs money
Booking costs money

Why is it unreasonable that a support band covers their share of the costs?

 

[ahjteam]

It costs money to tour... If you were a headlining band, would you want to invest 30-40k in a tour and just invite (even some "friends") to get the same benifits for free?

Tour managers cost money
Busses cost money
Food/Drinks (Essentials, not booze) cost money
Fuel costs money
Venues cost money (Be it in ticket sales or whatever)
Roadies/Stage hands cost money
Promotion costs money
Booking costs money

Why is it unreasonable that a support band covers their share of the costs?

Lets have a realistic "small band on a small gig" budget count...

A five piece band gets a fixed amount of 1000€ for a gig 200km away. The venue provides the PA and lights, but the band rents a van to drive to the gig and the band has their own FOH-engineer who drives the van.

- the agency takes their 20% share from the top, 800€ left
- the FOH engineers takes 150€ as his salary, 650€ left
- three hotel rooms cost 300€, 350€ left
- travel expenses including the van rental and gas is 100€, 250€ left
- Split that five ways for each band member, 50€ per band member

So at the end of the day after all the expenses you get 50€ from the gig per member. And because that is gross income, it means you still have to reduce taxes from that.

Boys, don't quit your dayjobs.

 

[Force666]

Well being that LA is the pinnacle of the music/entertainment business, it is far worse than just about anywhere else. I mean up here in the bay area, pay-to-play is mostly unheard of. I've seen it before, but rarely and it never works out after a while.

I'm sure it works the same down there, but when i've witnessed it up here it works like you have to sell 50 tickets to the show, keep 1 dollar profit from ticket sales. So if you can sell the tickets, you don't have to pay. But if you can't then you do. Is that how it works down there as well?

 

[Metaltastic]

Well being that LA is the pinnacle of the music/entertainment business, it is far worse than just about anywhere else. I mean up here in the bay area, pay-to-play is mostly unheard of. I've seen it before, but rarely and it never works out after a while.

I'm sure it works the same down there, but when i've witnessed it up here it works like you have to sell 50 tickets to the show, keep 1 dollar profit from ticket sales. So if you can sell the tickets, you don't have to pay. But if you can't then you do. Is that how it works down there as well?

Pretty common practice over in these parts!

 

[Force666]

Well Marcus, you're always welcome to just move here and play with Cold Grave, hahaha. No pay to play here!!

 

[Metaltastic]

Haha, I dunno John, as I look out my window at this bleak, overcast, cold-ass NY day, I can't possibly imagine moving to shred riffs with a band in warm California! :Spin: uke: