Is it the end of the road for Icons?

[Huge Hands]

One of the points I've not seen mentioned yet is that I was always told when doing a bit of music business studies about 25 years ago that big bands used to see touring as a "loss leader" to promote record sales.  I seem to remember being told gigs like Pink Floyd and their huge Wall building tour or Fleetwood Mac and their 7 separate limos between airport and gig would cost more than they got from ticket sales at the concert, but they would still amass a fortune from those people going home and buying their albums. 

I've read so many stories of UK bands trying to "crack" America and saying the second half of their low key tour was better because they would get gigs upgraded and better facilities as the sales went up.

Now that the only income is from streaming services, I believe the focus to get the money in is now on huge stadium gigs - i.e. trying to get as many bums on high priced seats and a much merchandise bought as possible.  I assume the up front costs to put a stadium gig on put too many fledgling bands off in case they don't recoup it, which might explain Flea's comments?  

[mikel]

21 hours ago, tegs07 said:

So is the secret to success be a solo artist, keep costs to the minimum and use digital platforms to reach your audience?

Its never been easier to make and record music without a commercial studio, and if you use a digital platform its out there. Gigging, and reaching a big live audience is another thing entirely.

[skychaserhigh]

Yes it's easier than ever to record at home these days with computers etc , but whether that's resulted in an increase in the quality of music being released is another thing entirely....

[mike257]

5 hours ago, Huge Hands said:

One of the points I've not seen mentioned yet is that I was always told when doing a bit of music business studies about 25 years ago that big bands used to see touring as a "loss leader" to promote record sales.  I seem to remember being told gigs like Pink Floyd and their huge Wall building tour or Fleetwood Mac and their 7 separate limos between airport and gig would cost more than they got from ticket sales at the concert, but they would still amass a fortune from those people going home and buying their albums. 

I've read so many stories of UK bands trying to "crack" America and saying the second half of their low key tour was better because they would get gigs upgraded and better facilities as the sales went up.

Now that the only income is from streaming services, I believe the focus to get the money in is now on huge stadium gigs - i.e. trying to get as many bums on high priced seats and a much merchandise bought as possible.  I assume the up front costs to put a stadium gig on put too many fledgling bands off in case they don't recoup it, which might explain Flea's comments?  

Live performance is the key income source now for almost all artists at any level. You're right that touring was a loss leader a few decades ago but that model has completely turned on its head now.

"Fledgling" bands wouldn't be entertained for a stadium show because promoters will only book a show they're fairly confident they can recoup their outlay on. By the time you can fill a stadium though, the returns make the astronomical costs worthwhile. 

On a smaller scale, budgets are tight everywhere. You can be a well known name with successful records out playing pretty packed shows in large clubs, and your tour can still be completely dependent on merch sales to be profitable.