• 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.

Gas prices grounding band

"the best we've ever done is $200 per show, more often less than $100..."

gas prices have nothing to do with it - poor business sense, and an inability to draw a crow are grounding them. What gas prices would make it profitable to play a show for $100?
 
That band doesn't get paid enough to play at the local park, let alone do an east coast tour. Often playing for less than $100 per show?

I guess I don't have it so bad. But the gas prices do hit hard. I recently played a show that was about 160 miles from home, 320 mile round trip. I got a total of $120 for my share, and $50 of it went for gas. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize out-of-town gigs have to pay big or its not worth it. And the type of places we've been playing do not pay big.
 
if you're a "touring band" and only getting $150-$200 a show, that's not really a "tour." More like "putting mediocrity in motion."

I took it as they're making (clearing after expenses and payroll) about $150 to $200 a show. Still, they could stay in South Eastern Wisconsin and Northern Illinois and make that. Why go to LA or the East Coast?
 
I agree. I don't live that far from Milwaukee and have never heard of those guys, and I don't consider myself totally out of the Wisconsin music loop. It would make more sense for them to just stay regional than going out to the coasts.

Never understood the point of that...what are they really accomplishing playing shows that far away for people that may or may not buy their CDs, and probably won't have a chance to see them play again for months or even years? Just seems to me that the only positive is that they can say "Yeah, we've toured and played LA, NYC, yadda yadda..."
 
Argh. A whole article on gas prices and music, and there is NO mention of whether or not the band lobbied for more money so that it could continue to play the gigs it had planned to play!!! It would be nice to see any instance where a band did in this kind of situation did the logical thing that everyone else does (bar owners, produce growers, etc, etc, etc...) and raise the price of their services/products. Or at least try. Everyone else is charging more. Why shouldn't the musician? Why do we have to effectively take a pay cut for our services, while all the other vendors/suppliers involved in all aspects of a night at a typical club raise theirs to meet financial needs?

So I think a band should be paid more with higher gas prices. The club owner will continue to have their planned entertainment for that night, instead of a sub or last minute act. This would presumably be better entertainment and not throw the patrons for a loop "Hey, I think Johnny and the Wingnuts, from Chicago, were supposed to be here tonight?!?!?!?" (or whatever the name...). And on the other end, the band scheduled to play has some financially based incentive to keep going on the tour as planned.

Or it may be the "reality" that the clubs simply don't need you, or any musician. At all. In that case, there can be no bargaining or rationalizing increased fees. But how do you know if you don't have that conversation with the club owner?????

I'm just frustrated that musicians don't seem to stick up for themselves in business matters/financial matters. But hey, I could be wrong. There may be some huge movement of working musicians who are playing the local bars/clubs and who are successfully getting more money. Anyone? Ferris? Buehler? Anyone?
 
I realized years ago that a music career was not profitable for most musicians ... It makes a great hobby but I can make more money as an architect.

What other business do you invest in thousands of dollars of equipment and spend years learning your trade and then you get to the bar early and set up. Then you play for hours and tear down. Finally you get home a 4am with $150 or $200 in your pocket. That is not a fast track to prosperity.
 
150 or 200??? Thats a good paying gig. SERIOUSLY!

Most the blues gig pay out 65 to 80 bucks and you play on average 3 1 hour sets.and its very cut throat too.

As far as a band asking for more money...Sorry...wont work at all. another band will play for half or free once you "take the high road". and once the bar owner gets in a band for cheaper..well...there you go.

We did this to ourselves...the cut throat crap.
 
It's funny. (well not really)

When I was gigging in a part time band the mid '80s, we made enough to cover our PA rental, pay the soundman and a roady, fuel the 16 footer and my E150, get something to eat for dinner (Micky Ds) and still put about 20 to 50 bucks each in our pockets each night.

I quit playing to get a career and now 20 years later as I'm getting back into it, I find the money's worse :rollno:?

OMG!
 
I realized years ago that a music career was not profitable for most musicians ... It makes a great hobby but I can make more money as an architect.

What other business do you invest in thousands of dollars of equipment and spend years learning your trade and then you get to the bar early and set up. Then you play for hours and tear down. Finally you get home a 4am with $150 or $200 in your pocket. That is not a fast track to prosperity.

...and architects don't make all that much, not unless you're "name" architect, so far as I can tell.

:)
 
Bad bad business sense. One of my friends run a duo, top 40 cover music stuff for party/weddings etc. Lot's of prerecorded backgrounds, and then both guys sings and plays bass/guitar, they keep their own pa and light rig, and it's quite a good show they run.

They charge per evening, 600 euro .... (They live and operate in Sweden)

There you go, unless you are into original material trying to break ground, rethink the concept, do the math, get going ...

;)

D.Don
 
Argh. A whole article on gas prices and music, and there is NO mention of whether or not the band lobbied for more money so that it could continue to play the gigs it had planned to play!!! It would be nice to see any instance where a band did in this kind of situation did the logical thing that everyone else does (bar owners, produce growers, etc, etc, etc...) and raise the price of their services/products. Or at least try. Everyone else is charging more. Why shouldn't the musician? Why do we have to effectively take a pay cut for our services, while all the other vendors/suppliers involved in all aspects of a night at a typical club raise theirs to meet financial needs?

So I think a band should be paid more with higher gas prices. The club owner will continue to have their planned entertainment for that night, instead of a sub or last minute act. This would presumably be better entertainment and not throw the patrons for a loop "Hey, I think Johnny and the Wingnuts, from Chicago, were supposed to be here tonight?!?!?!?" (or whatever the name...). And on the other end, the band scheduled to play has some financially based incentive to keep going on the tour as planned.

Or it may be the "reality" that the clubs simply don't need you, or any musician. At all. In that case, there can be no bargaining or rationalizing increased fees. But how do you know if you don't have that conversation with the club owner?????

I'm just frustrated that musicians don't seem to stick up for themselves in business matters/financial matters. But hey, I could be wrong. There may be some huge movement of working musicians who are playing the local bars/clubs and who are successfully getting more money. Anyone? Ferris? Buehler? Anyone?

It's a nice theory, but it doesn't work out that way most of the time, in our experience. You can't just ask clubs for more money and expect to get it, unless you are really well known and have a following, which I'm guessing this band isn't and doesn't.

Times are tough on bars too. People are not going to clubs as much now due to higher gas prices. Some clubs are cutting back on live music or cutting it out completely. Some are paying bands less money. To say, "gosh, just go ask for MORE" can be a fast way to being priced out of the market. If you are just "another original band", there will be some other band out there that will play for less than you if you ask for more.
 
I took it as they're making (clearing after expenses and payroll) about $150 to $200 a show.

I don't think so. They say: “Out of town, I think the best we’ve ever done was probably $150 or $200,” per show, Bullock said. “But more often than not, it’s less than $100. Which, for a lot of these stops, would have offset the amount spent for gas in a day. But it’s just gas. No food, no nothing else.”

That last bit about not covering food or anything else tells me they're saying $150-$200 gross.

I've played plenty of gigs like that. But I'm not trying to make money with my music and wouldn't go on "tour" at those rates. No way.
 
We get $400 plus how ever much over at 5 bucks a head. 80 people = 400, so if we have 120 people, thats $200 more we get, for a total of $600. On so on. We get the original $400 even if only 20 people show which is never because,we always draw a crowd. Point is if a local cover band can make this why are they traveling for cheap venues.
 
Sometimes it's not about making money, it's about promoting your music. I saw a band a couple weeks ago at a local punk show. These guys were on tour from Texas. It was the typical punk all ages show at a BYO venue. It wasn't real crowded, but these guys played with as much heart and passion as any band that ever played a stadium. Some of the skaters showed and we managed to get a decent pit going. I asked the drummer how they were making ends meet. He said they usually pick up some gas cash at gigs like this, but that's about it. Sometimes all they have to eat are raman noodles. Once in a while someone will let them crash at their place so they get a chance to shower and get some real sleep. If not, they get in the van and head to the next place. We'll always make sure the out of town bands get the most cash of the night. They've had the chance to play with some cool bands like Rancid and The Street Dogs. That might not seem like much to some here, but trust me, most of us would kill for that chance. The coolest thing about this is these guys are happy. They're in the prime of their lives and have that fire in their hearts that many wish they had.

So yeah, some of the punk bands are forging ahead just like they've always done. Is it good business? Of course not IF you're looking at the music as a money making enterprise, but that's not something most punks do anyway. Yes, at some point even punks will draw the line at touring, but till then they're having the time of their lives and what a great bunch of memories they'll have a long time from now. I envy them and those like them that have the faith to throw caution to the wind.