vic wrote
Most of the top (rock) stars in the US and UK are super rich people.
Yes. But the "top" are nowhere near the majority of professional musicians, not even a majority of professional musicians with recording contracts. Sure, U2 and The Stones have lots of money, probably Pink Floyd too, but after that I'm less than sure. A lot of careers seem pretty ephemeral and all those sales will have to be offset against recording costs, tour costs etc and the public loses interest and you're not yet 40.
And I wonder why so many of them, at an age at which they'd probably prefer to bounce the grand kids on their knee, are reforming or still touring. Could it be because a lot of them actually do need the money?
Bruce Cockburn has a long career in terms of recording and performing, has had a couple of hits in the USA (and even one in South Africa), has critical acclaim up the wazoo but still tours a lot. He says one reason he doesn't stop is that he has kids to put through university.
How do they make their money? From the sales (millions) of recorded material I presume ? Plus the odd festival type live and TV appearance ?
As far as I can tell the main revenue streams for all but the multi-platinum sellers (and maybe even for some of those) are composing royalties and live performance. The festival appearances are a double-edged sword. There's loads of them in Europe and the UK in the summer, most of them much smaller than Glastonbury, but you can get over-exposed on that circuit so you don't want to play every festival going. I also suspect that in many cases only the headline acts are making good cash out of festivals - there will be several performers who will get their expenses covered and will be allowed to top that up with merchandise sales (and, of course, any endorsements they have). At the lower rungs they may even take an unpaid slot at a name festival just to get exposure (by which I mean getting their name better known, though given the English climate the other meaning of the word is not entirely ruled out).
What does make a difference in the USA, Europe and the UK is that there are well established niche circuits that artists can work and make a regular living from. There's a lively folk circuit in the UK for instance. Not all big gigs, but I recall one I went to a couple of years ago. 120 tickets at 12 pounds a head. If Martin Carthy took half of that then that's reasonable money for a night's work (and his accomodation was probably paid as well). OK... it wouldn't keep Mick Jagger in aftershave, but for most of us 700 pounds a night several times a month would keep the wolf from the door (plus he sold quite a few CDs that night - I should know, my wife bought a good chunk of them. I should add that they were a present for me.)
In SA unfortunately that is not the case....here, bands like the Parlatones and others, got to rely on other forms of income...like those mentioned in this thread. What's so wrong with that? Money is money, irrespective of the source. Page and Co are still making millions...are they also regarded as being commercial and selling their souls to whoever..? :-\
PS: I'm no Parlatones fan... ?
Well, yes, on the classic hierarchy of needs things like food on the table and a roof over one's head are lower down, and thus more fundamental, than softer rewards like critical acclaim and artistic integrity.
