Honestly, this goes throu my mind. They say, touring helps sales. But I doubt this. Touring is basically for making money, which is fine, because artists have to earn money too... but is it still important to release albums, when noone buys them?

Take Coldplay and Madonna. They sold 5 and 3 mio copies of their albums before they toured. After their tour the figures didn't increase much.

2,5 mio people saw Madonna, so the album should have sold like nothing during her tour.

Also the single sales were not affected by the tour.

back to the album... I think people tend to forget how expencive albums are. Hard Candy must have been one of Madonna's most expensive album ever... yet she only sold 3mio copies!

and minor artists don't earn anything with albums.

So, does this mean in the future artists have to promote singles in order to have hits so that more people will watch you (even the most spectacular shows are shit when someone only had one hit)?
Should they sell their albums only on tour, this means, the released singles plus some bonus tracks?
What about giving away free download licences for the visitors with their ticket. They could go home and download the song for free and people would chart??

I always thought Prince way of charting with Musicology was great. This doesn't count anymore, right?

The real money is on touring and not on record sales!

mikematronik said:

yeah that's what i said. But this thread is about the fact touring doesn't seem to affect record sales.
So what many claim, people would be a promotion tool for records, is wrong, no?

graecophilos said:

The album is to have a reason to GO on tour

album sales are low , and maybe are hardly effected by touring , but the fact that most people download music means more people can enjoy the music and then they can check it out live on tour.

If touring does NOT help your sales, either your show is bad or your new project is bad. Probably BOTH are bad.

Graycap23 said:

Well it hardly helped on the acts I named. And both tours were great!

I mean, let's face the fact: Hardcore fans, who spent 100s for one ticket have the album allready.

It's about convincing the rest, but in the UK, they didn't go out to buy Miles Away. It was her biggest flop since 1983!

Graycap23 said:

Not necessarily true. You can have a profitable tour without a new record to promote or even a great tour with lousy sales. There are many artists I would never buy their CDs, but dig seeing them live. Like Prince.

graecophilos said:

No, it's her biggest flop since 2003 ("Love Profusion"). You can't go around comparing current chart peaks to previous ones, neither you can say "One More Chance" or "Bad Girl" made a bigger impact than "Miles Away" only because they peaked higher. Her career has had several flop singles.

As for the tour: people buy so few CDs these days, the tour is to make them hear the new music and pay for it via ticket. To continue the Madonna example: she sold like 40,000 copies of Hard Candy in Argentina & Spain and in the former she was seen by more than 250,000 people on her tour.

Of course there are always people who see an artist and decide to pick their CD up, but that's not the norm. Prince realized this when he gave away Planet Earth for free in the UK and had 21 shows there. The album concept is over.

PFunkjazz said:

lol.....can't sell a new record if u don't have one.

I think touring can be a promotional tool if you are more indie than let's say Madonna. Also for Artist/Bands that have been around for a long time, touring is a source of income when you are not releasing that much music. For instance the band Heart just tours now, as they can still sell tix to their concerts, yet they aren't really making albums anymore. I wouldn't say their creativity has dried up, but after 30 years in the business, they aren't going to move that much volume. I would say that for a band like that, selling new music via their tour vehicle at the concerts could move singles and other music.

Graycap23 said:

I don't necessarily agree with this. I think that a tour might help sales, but I don't think it always does. I look at Prince's tours in the past, I don't think that tours have helped his sales, even though the album was good and the concert is good to.

superspaceboy said:

What are u basing that on?

Graycap23 said:

I guess what I am saying is there used to be a time where a tour would help Album Sales, but not so much anymore.

On the Prince comment, I don't think any of his last tours helped album sales. I think with artists who have been around a while, the fanbase already have the album and the tour is simply a bonus.

For some reason, Madonna's albums NEVER help her albums (or maybe it's just the last few). That might work with smaller bands.

superspaceboy said:

How can Prince's last 2 tours help his album slaes when he gave away the album with the price of the ticket?

graecophilos said:

Glad to hear it. It's an extremely bland and boring song that hardcore Madonna fans have mistaken for something special simply because it's an autobiographical ballad. They fell for the same trick with that other snoozefest "Drowned World/ Substitute for Love".
[Edited 1/12/09 12:06pm]

Tours bring money. You'll be lucky to get money from recordings whether or not those recordings profit for the label or not.

Graycap23 said:

That's what I was saying. I don't think that tours help sales anymore, but it doesn't mean that the album is bad or that the tour is bad.

I think that concerts are so expensive that people just don't go to go hear music they may not have heard...or even being dragged to a concert for free. I think concert goers these days are pretty vested in who they are going to see. That is aside from Festivals or things like that.

I think the only type of artist or band that tours to sell more cd's...these would be your smaller artists or indie artists that play in smaller clubs.

VinnyM27 said:

Because she usually tours a year after the album is released. It wasn't the case with HC, that's why the tour actually helped HC to stay on Billboard for 30 weeks even though it was dead by June already.

graecophilos said:

Sounds more like a misunderstanding. Who told you touring is supposed to help record sales and not vice-versa?
Records are and have always been tools to help artist get exposure for tours. Since the incarnation of the internet, there has benn a lot of misinformation spread.
That's like saying cars are a tool to help tires roll.

Having a new album attracts people to the shows. It is only a tool. Some big name artists do not need a new album to atract people to their shows. It is just another tool.

It's not a lie, it's just an old rule of showbiz that doesn't really apply anymore.

A young band touring for the first time is unlikely to be making ANY money on the road. They are lucky to be grossing a couple thousand bucks a night in big clubs, if they're even doing that well. If it's a new act the tickets are probably cheap, $10 to $20 a head. Once you figure in the cost of a road crew, a bus, hotel rooms and hot meals for all those people, it's pretty close to break-even money even if the shows sell out. If the shows DON'T sell out, the record label loses the money for tour support, another promotional expense like advertising. But everyone hopes the band will do well enough to break into bigger venues on the next tour. How will they do that? They'll have a hit record & get played on the radio.

It is possible to make money on a club tour if you keep your expenses low enough - keep a small crew and sleep at Day's Inn instead of Four Seasons - but most artists aren't thinking like that; they want to act like rock stars and convince people they are, so Four Seasons it is. Put it on the record label's tab and good luck recouping.

As for the big stars, yeah now the real money is in playing live, not making new records. Say Madonna's new album sells two million copies and she's getting about $1 a copy in royalties (probably a high figure), that's $2 million for about a year's creative work. By contrast, her tours gross more than that every week; not just cuz more people are going, but because she's charging ten or twenty times what a young band could get. Actually more - 20 x $20 is $400 and I know the best Madonna tix cost a lot more than that.

BlaqueKnight said:

that reminds me, just lately i've been watching a tour dvd from Kylie i believe, and she was talking about how she used to struggle putting a tour together, and that when she could, the finances would be too short, until she made it big again that's when they started backing her up properly.

bobzilla77 said:

The smart artists, usually "established", have grown their fanbase over the years and know how to get word what the new release is, when it will be out and what the tour itinerary will be. From my purview the label isn't really offering up tour support outside of minimal advertising. Its the artists' own organization that co-ordniates expenses, billables, receivables and logisitics just like a small business would. They aren't really beholden to getting a hit on the charts or promoting to new fans because the fanbase does the work.

Well theres alot to this statement. Touring can help you alot if you are an opening act that no one has ever heard of and you get the opening slot for a big time artist. As for the others that are "established" the Prince's ,Elton's, Jovi's etc....if they would just tour and not do new music, what would be the point? regardless of the money they make from the albums, they have already gotten paid, new albums to them are there ways to challenge themselves, they dont care if people buy it, but they cant just keep treading water, and going out playing the same songs year after year, i mean what is the point of that? To me nothing bothers me more than a "laundry list" of hits, i know that they have to do it to some extent, but really, why do they? because someone might complain? who gives a fuck if someone complains.

PFunkjazz said:

It's a long time since I was involved in that world. When I was in a band signed to Interscope 1994-98 it was pretty common you'd get a tour support budget so you could hire a sound man & rent a decent vehicle. We were making like $300 to $500 a night at the gigs so it was necessary to keep us out there.

lastdecember said:

Well if enough people complain, no one will pay to see the gigs.

There's people like Van Morrison who I'm not a huge fan of, but might like to go see live, I like some of his songs & he's supposedly a good performer. But he has the reputation of never playing his greatest hits, so I know I won't hear the songs I like, so I dont go. Especially not when the tickets are $75 and up. He might be doing the greatest thing ever, but it's not familiar so I don't want to risk the money. And that's what people are paying the big money to see, something familiar.

But I agree, it's really exciting to go to a gig wanting to hear NEW songs, and the artists seem to perk up when doing their new material. Going to see the Who in 2006 they did a lot of new songs, and they weren't the best songs played all night, but they were the most spirited performances.

bobzilla77 said:

Well its a little of both, pretty much everyone i go to see i have seen umpteen times, Prince being the most, but then others like Elton,Norah Jones, etc...too many to name, but i dont want hits anymore at this point, especially when an artist has a new record out. i remember back in97 when Prince toured Emancipation, and here he had 36 new songs, he never played more than 4! Thats why that tour was a major let down, im done with KISS and Lets Go crazy. The best thing he never did was on the ONA tour when he almost played the whole RC album and almost no hits, i know the people in the cheaper seats were pissed, but whatever. The thing is that is the gamble, its not like you are going to see a broadway show like CATS or something like that and you buy the ticket and then they do another play. Artists are Artists and they shhould do the best show, not just what was popular, im finding the reason why alot of die hards SKIP shows now its because of the "repetition" in the performers and the laundry list type of shows.

I think all artists that tour should have the album included with the tour tickets. It sucks how people go see someone legendary and then don't know the new material at all and will quickly forget about it. The artists taht have put out the new songs deserve to have fans that are feeling that stuff by the time they go to to the show, and what better way to do that than give away the album with the ticket? That way they can make money off the tour and the album and then total sales would be high again. The album could still be sold at stores too, but giving them away and including them with the tour price would solve a lot of problems.

The graphics in the sticky and sweet tour were related to the album concept, but that large bunch that didn't buy the album or don't know the name of it won't really get it or sing along and it's a damn good album IMO!
[Edited 1/12/09 14:41pm]