• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

A glimpse into how much semi-big full time bands make?



This band is TERRIBLE. They sound exactly like 10,000 other TERRIBLE bands. How is that guy a "singer?" How many bands can this genre support, anyway? It's not exactly diverse.

Here's another song:



And another:



I can't tell any difference at all between these songs. The "singer" uses the same note almost the entire time.

I've been working day jobs since the seventies. Why should these guys get paid anything more than what they're making? Shouldn't they at least try to play music that has an audience? How is this even "metal?" I don't recall metal sounding like this.



LOL! I now understand why they made no money...*** is that garbage?
 
This thread is entertaining as heck. Just a point of interest, yes making money from selling CD's and vinyl and MP3's does not make you money, and investing insane amounts of money into touring really requires a degree in business to get it right, but I've heard from most bands that Merch is where you make your money, so...

HIRE ME TO DEDIGN YOUR MERCH

and hopefully that translates into some better profit margins for you. : )
 
Artists among the rich has been a blip occurring over the last 50-60 years. For most of history, artists have been below the working class, earning almost nothing.

The artists that have operated on their own level are usually very canny businesspeople who identify and fill a need, only their art happens to be their product. Hate on Taylor Swift all day long, but she is a businessperson first and an artist second and that is why she rules the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JMacBass65
The Ozark Mtn Daredevils had a top ten hit around 1969 in "If You Wanna Get to Heaven." In 1970 they had a number one hit with "Jackie Blue." In an interview the singer said that "Heaven" made them about $250K to split. "Jackie" made them about $50K to split.

"Jackie Blue" actually dropped in '74. I point this out not to be a d-head, but because I remember it getting beaucoup airplay, and I'm talking NYC stations. Damn if $50K net for that hit doesn't tell you that the music biz is no place for musicians.
 
Look....a LOT of musicians are in multiple bands these days just to make ends meet and that includes VERY high selling bands and bands that have had significant record sales throughout the years. It is EXTREMELY difficult to make good money even for top tier artists in today's industry and for new and up and coming bands it is designed so that not only will they not make any money but they will incur a ton of debt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mantis Tobaggan
"Jackie Blue" actually dropped in '74. I point this out not to be a d-head, but because I remember it getting beaucoup airplay, and I'm talking NYC stations. Damn if $50K net for that hit doesn't tell you that the music biz is no place for musicians.
That would be $350K in 2015 dollars, according to a nifty inflation calculator I found. For "If you Wanna Get To Heaven" it would be $1.7 million.

I bet you could count on both hands the number of artists clearing a million dollars in royalty for a single new song written these days.
 
Look....a LOT of musicians are in multiple bands these days just to make ends meet and that includes VERY high selling bands and bands that have had significant record sales throughout the years. It is EXTREMELY difficult to make good money even for top tier artists in today's industry and for new and up and coming bands it is designed so that not only will they not make any money but they will incur a ton of debt.

They can my minimize that by taking production on themselves. Lean touring. Control merch. Crowd funding. Stop taking on partners that give them loans. As much as the old way is tougher, the new opps are there.
 
It's a pretty simple case of market saturation. Tons of metal in various sub genres exists. Along with all the new bands cropping up, look at all the "vintage" bands that haven't called it quits. I'm going to see Lamb of God, who have been in the game a while, and Anthrax is opening. If you'd have asked me in 1990 if I thought Anthrax would be making albums and touring in 2015, I'd have giggled.

The supply issue almost makes the quality of the music a non issue. There aren't enough fans of the genre with enough disposable income to support the bands trying to make a living at this.
 
Does this mean that Metal is dying of a slow death? Are we going to be stuck with Justin Bieber going forward?

It's a pretty simple case of market saturation. Tons of metal in various sub genres exists. Along with all the new bands cropping up, look at all the "vintage" bands that haven't called it quits. I'm going to see Lamb of God, who have been in the game a while, and Anthrax is opening. If you'd have asked me in 1990 if I thought Anthrax would be making albums and touring in 2015, I'd have giggled.

The supply issue almost makes the quality of the music a non issue. There aren't enough fans of the genre with enough disposable income to support the bands trying to make a living at this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red Planet
I don't understand how a touring band on a label could make THAT little. Granted, I realize they're not going to be raking in millions, but $17K a year? You have to figure they would get at least $800-$1000 per show. If you're touring that's gotta be at least 100 shows per year. That's just sounds like horrendous management to me. Am I wrong to think this?

I think the article may have gotten it mixed up and band members were making $17k each, not altogether.
 
They can my minimize that by taking production on themselves. Lean touring. Control merch. Crowd funding. Stop taking on partners that give them loans. As much as the old way is tougher, the new opps are there.
I think a large part of the problem is that people who are good at being responsible, minimizing costs and organizing things are also the kind of people who avoid ending up in touring bands. We (I include myself in this, having once paid a drummer the equivalent of $16 to record drums for an album that I later made a few hundred dollars from) put our bean-counting skills to use in areas where there are more beans to count...
 
  • Like
Reactions: hrodbert696
I think the article may have gotten it mixed up and band members were making $17k each, not altogether.
Yeah, the singer's statement is not clear about whether the $17K is per member or for the whole band, and also whether it's per year or for their whole career. But $17K per member sounds both realistic and crappy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hrodbert696
Does this mean that Metal is dying of a slow death? Are we going to be stuck with Justin Bieber going forward?


Not necessarily. The music industry has changed radically over the last few decades. Availability of genres and distribution channels aren't what they were in the Black Sabbath era. The public wants what the public wants.

I do think it's amusing that the metal paradox exists. Metal is a rejection of the popular, yet bands want to make money at it, which can only happen if they become popular.
 
It's really saddening because I can tell you right now, after only being in Michael Rowe's band for a few months, that most of this money is going to overhead costs. Mike is VERY transparent with all of us and tells us right up front what the venues are paying us for gigs, with a full band involved they do offer to pony up more dough. I'm not going to publish numbers, but lets just say that if we were gigging on a regular basis and doing more marketing, I may be able to scratch by on my own just backing him and doing something on the side (sessions, lessons, etc). Houston is where we're based out of so there are lots of venues here, that does account for something.

We don't use promoters, managers, or outside accountants (one of his relatives is a masterful accountant and business major) so I can see how this money is actually being sucked up by the suits in this situation. Sure, kids downloading music isn't helping, but that's not the whole story. It's like the plight of public school teachers, all that money is going to administrators as well, those who swear their jobs are the most important but as we know aren't actually generating the results like the teachers are.

I think the comments about metal being a musician's genre is a fair point. I'd venture to say artists in general are hitting it very difficult though. Just being brazen about my opinion, but the teenie boppers who are really just a paid face that took vocal lessons can't be counted in the same category as someone writing all their own music or a band that collaborates and records everything together. The teenie boppers are going to sell lunchboxes, perfume, t-shirts, diaries, and all the other stuff that people just aren't going to buy from a legit (in my opinion) band. Most bands will do t-shirts, books, beer bottle openers, and maybe some posters. One thing I've learned from Chris Letchford (Scale the Summit) is that tab books are a GREAT way to make cash from musician fans. If I just want to play a single, older tune (like Brick House or Stir It Up) I'm likely going to look for tabs, but if it's an artist where I enjoy their whole catalog, I will get the tab book. I have the bass tabs for Carving Desert Canyons by Scale The Summit, it's great to have an approved copy of how to play something right in front of you.

The business changes and sadly we (musicians) need to change too. I don't think forcing album sales is REALLY going to make that much difference, that's only going into the record exec's pockets anyways. Live music, smart merchandise, and other savvy ways to make money are going to be what helps us get by.
 

Latest posts