Memorex wrote:I think this is very common for a lot of bands today and a way to make a quick buck.
I tend to be more understanding of some of this stuff these days knowing that live is where bands have to make their money now. Due to file sharing and youtube, mailbox money (royalties) are way down. Some people planned their retirements on that money and it evaporated. In their shoes, I'd do the same thing. It's not like their current crop of concert attendees are the type to care anyway.
Actually this isn't true.. the percentage an artist receives now vs. back when the labels ruled has pretty much flip-flopped... 30 years ago they'd be lucky to get $1-3 per album (or less)... and out of that they had to repay any fronted label money, then their own overhead (crew, etc). Back then sales volume was king. Selling 10 million albums @ $10 each, the label taking their profit (70% or more) would still "net" an artist very little.
Historically, touring used to be seen as a "loss leader"... it drove albums sales, and the goal was to break even, with the artist keeping a larger percentage of merchandise sales. That's how they made their money at shows. If I remember right Journey's current "guarantee" just to show up is something like $250k.... certainly not a bad fee for one nights work, even when considering the cost of crew, etc.. The flip in ticket prices from "then to now" is due to the artists... not the ticket sellers like Live Nation or Ticketmaster...
The irony is that touring now is a "for profit" enterprise, instead of simply a "break even" endeavor, designed to push unit sales.
Journeys Walmart deal was a good example of how things have changed. If I remember correctly they pocketed $6 for every $10 disc sold.. which would have been an unheard of artists percentage 30 years ago..
The old distribution channel is in a larger sense "how people heard about artists", and was that was once the monopoly of the labels. That is now wide open. Because the labels no longer control the distribution channel, and there are now myriad avenues of distribution, the labels have no way to manage the exclusivity they previously used to create a "buzz" around an artist, and limit the number of choices the consumer actually heard or could by product of. So nowadays artists have to do all that for themselves, or have great management doing it. Lady Gaga is a great example, her manager is a genius. He made her career for her. Then she fired him to self-manage her latest album release (Artpop).. and it's failed miserably.
So now they now have the benefit of keeping a much larger percentage of the profits (because the label isn't raping them), and they do not need to sell numbers equivalent to 1970's volumes to make a pretty good living. On top of that, touring is a profit center.
I'd bet Neal is pocketing much more "net" than he was 25 years ago.