Now, let's say your band can fill a 250-person venue as the sole band and gets a 60/40 door split. For most indie bands, this is approximately as likely as a rainbow-colored pony appearing in the bass player's bath tub, but let's go for a best-case scenario. For each $20 ticket, the band will see revenues of $12.
The median band plays 11-50 shows a year. Let's say a 4-person band (a) plays 50 shows, (b) sells out every show, (c) as the sole artist at the show, (d) has no touring expenses.
(250 x 50 x 12) / 4 = $37,500 apiece
That's gross, not net.
David Lowery says there are well-known bands that are living out of their vans. I believe him.
This probably deserves a much longer essay, but it's interesting to me how closely this argument tracks pro-union/anti-union and regulation/de-regulation arguments.
There's a good system-level argument for things like certain regulations, certain unions, patent law, copyright law, etc. The long-term benefits exceed the shorter-term costs. And these sorts of arguments can also be extended to why it makes good sense (and why it is a societal benefit) to give a middle-class income opportunity to a certain level of musician, when being left purely to the free market might not allow it.
The problem is that we aren't really noticing the negative effects of not having that. There's a ton of pretty good music coming out from the ever-replenishing generation of musicians that is motivated to produce for 2-3 years just out of deluded dreams before they burn out from the lack of lifestyle-supporting income. You get lots of simple pop forms, looping electronica, mashups, and exaggerated dipthongs.
Meanwhile, we're probably getting a lot less of any of the sorts of revolutionary music that could come from a talented artist being financially encouraged for a decade or more. The tragedy is that we probably won't ever know what we're missing.
Kevin Kelly is a better manifesto writer than an economist.
He is expecting that a true fan "will purchase anything and everything you produce. They will drive 200 miles to see you sing. They will buy the super deluxe re-issued hi-res box set of your stuff even though they have the low-res version. They have a Google Alert set for your name. They bookmark the eBay page where your out-of-print editions show up. They come to your openings. They have you sign their copies. They buy the t-shirt, and the mug, and the hat. They can't wait till you issue your next work. They are true fans."
Later he posits that the true fan will spend 1/365 of their income exclusively on you (presumably not including the travel costs of driving 200 miles to your concert), nor does he account for how buying out-of-print copies of your material on eBay provides you with income ... unless you're selling it rather than other eBay sellers.
In his estimation, all costs and expenses you incur are modest, you will make a huge chunk of $100 off of each of those thousand fans ... well, if you're a solo artist and you personally nurture your True Fans.
okay ... so maybe it is possible, but he hand waves so much that it feels like he's not operating in the real world.
Reminds me of the Kids in the Hall's Money Momentum skit:
Thanks Thomas, good explanation. For clarification, I was looking for further reading, not disagreeing :)
This is very good data. Also kind of scary. I knew musicians had a hard time of it, but I've never seen the numbers crunched like that.
As a semi-relevant aside, my girlfriend works on Broadway and frequently tells me about the actors/actresses she meets. There are well-known stars who make between $10-20 thousand per contract (which may last about 6 months, commonly) despite having a leading role. I suppose it's similar to the music industry - only a privileged few ever make it to what an engineer would call "starting salary" and only a handful ever get rich (comparatively).
It's saddening that the arts are so monetarily difficult. I have a deep appreciation for music, theatre and film but the constituents really get shafted.
>There are well-known stars who make between $10-20 thousand per contract (which may last about 6 months, commonly) despite having a leading role
You might be thinking of Off Broadway - all of Broadway has to pay Equity rates, which as of last October was $1,754 per week. The minimum an actor would make on a six month Broadway contract would be ~$45k (normally slightly more, there are a number of things Equity adds on top, like Per Diems, chorus fees, etc).
This is still not a lot, and of course many actors may go months without work. Non-equity gigs are also often much lower paying.
It's simple supply and demand. Lots of people want to be a musician, or an actor, and will accept a much lower salary to do that than they'd demand for other jobs.
