And how many of these bands have the available funds to tour endlessly, until they reach successful levels? Achieving success in the music industry is a hell of a lot more than simple desire. If so, Anvil may should have been the biggest metal act since Metallica.
Anvil was actually making money on the road though, even in the movie! In fact, even on that poorly booked European tour in the movie they were getting guarantees of 1500 euro per night as Lips said himself, which isn't all that bad for a band who never made it anywhere at all. In fact, I was shocked that promoters were even paying them that much. Was that enough to sustain them for life? Oh heeeeeeeelll no, but I also attribute alot of ignorance and lack of information to why they never made it. The fact the only label Anvil shopped to was EMI and said they had to have a major label behind them and wouldn't take no for an answer was very unreasonable. Metallica busted ass on the road in the 80s, I don't think Anvil did anywhere even close to the amount of touring that Metallica did, even before Metallica was *Metallica*.
Its the chicken and the egg. Gotta have $$$ to be able to tour, but you have to be able to tour to make the $$$. And just because you tour, doesn't guarantee the money.....
Well no. This argument is just silly. You have to have money to make money; as I said, business 101. How do you think any business gets started? Capital! This is like the 80th time I've said it, you need to make sacrifices, some bands are willing, others aren't. Simple as that.
Honey, there is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension skills, and I have read the entirety of your posts. I disagree with what I see as the "bulk" of your argument, as follows: most bands (that most here listen to anyway) do indeed need "day jobs" (and not just for extra cash, but to pay the bills) as they do NOT make enough money off of touring/merch/CD sales to sustain touring and recording, much less actually being able to pay the rent and light bill.
MOST of the bands in this prog/power scene don't tour at all, so duh, of course they have day jobs. And guess what? I'm not accusing them of anything -- as you previously said, they have families and "real" jobs. Good for them, but then don't ask why they haven't broken out as big as say In Flames. There are bands willing to make sacrifices and there are others that don't. I've said it like 80,000 times by now!
No, it doesn't matter HOW much you tour, for some (lots of) bands, they will simply never make enough money to sustain touring and recording. Period. No, it's not rocket science.
No it doesn't matter HOW much you tour, but it's a combination of HOW much you tour and WHAT kind of touring you do. You do as much DIY touring as you can in the hopes of getting the interest of a decent metal label that puts you in touch with First Row Talent or TKO or The Agency Group and then you do some tours opening for big bands until a really good offer rolls your way and then you keep going and never look back. Somewhere along all that, the album should be selling etc.
Also, I don't know enough about the 4 bands you mentioned by name, but it seems that others who do think your figures are off base, hence my questioning them. I don't know you, so don't take my questions as insults... I honestly am trying for clarification because in my (albeit limited, as indicated previously) experience, that simply is not how it works. What is your "expertise"? Are you involved in the biz in some way (not that I am, so don't take that as a knock), or are you friends with these guys? Basically, I am just curious as to where you get these $5k/night numbers.
Well I don't know for sure how much bands make, but they are approximations based on what I know others make. When you bring in 800 people per night, you tend to make X amount, 5,000 people per night, you make y amount. And yes, I am sort of involved in the music business, but that as as far as I'm willing to say at this point about it. Nor am I willing to admit how much people I know make on the road. That's their business.
What you are saying will work to some extent for some bands... it will NOT always work, and not just because someone doesn't "take a chance." We're not talking about my "favorite band" here or bands aspiring and expecting to be the next Metallica; we're talking about hard-working bands who are trying to just figure out a way to be able to afford to make another record.
How it is coming across to me is that if a band isn't touring enough to make money, they must simply be lazy or whatever. What you need to understand is that it's most often not simply a "choice" of taking a "financial risk" or not: you can't bankroll something on a smile and a promise.
RAGHAGAGHAGAHAGAHAGAHAGAHAGAHAGAH!!!!!
Of course it doesn't always work! You could buy as many business books as you can afford, ask for opinions from well known entrepreneurs, etc and start up a tea company with the best advice in the world and STILL not do well. Why are you guys arguing my semantics so much? When I say for example, that touring is a guarantee for success, I don't mean it in strict mathematical terms. It's not as certain as 1 + 1 = 2, but it's more of a guarantee than other promotional means.
I ALSO NEVER SAID THAT A BAND IS LAZY FOR NOT TOURING! What I am saying, is that some bands are willing to make sacrifices and others aren't. The ones that don't probably have excellent reasons for doing so, but at the same time, you cannot then say "WELL WHY ARENT THEY TOURING?! FUCK THE MUSIC BUSINESS." There are no free lunches.
And nobody's talking about Metallica. Do you have any idea how much Metallica makes on the road? HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS per night!
